DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 9/10/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/10/2024 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2024, 10/17/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,112,366. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,112,366.
Instant application and Patent No. 12,112,366 claim the same invention as follows:
Instant Application
Patent No. 11,210,715
1. A method comprising:
processing, by one or more servers, a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery;
sending, by the one or more servers to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders;
automatically identifying one or more couriers for the batch of food orders;
sending, by the one or more servers, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery;
monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations,
the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times.
1. A method comprising:
processing, by one or more servers, a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery;
sending, by the one or more servers to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders;
automatically identifying, at a first interval prior to one or more designated pick up times, one or more couriers for the batch of food orders based, at least in part, on traffic considerations;
sending, by the one or more servers, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery;
monitoring, in substantially real-time, traffic between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
responsive to the traffic, determining a re-route for delivery of at least one of the assigned set of food orders;
notifying a corresponding computing device associated with a courier of the re-route for delivery;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the traffic between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
causing display, on a user interface of a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying the restaurant based at least in part on at least one of:
a preference of a first customer associated with a first one of the client devices;
a dislike of the first customer;
an allergy associated with the first customer; or
the location associated with the restaurant being within a threshold distance of the location.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying the restaurant based at least in part on at least one of:
a preference of a first customer associated with a first one of the client devices;
a dislike of the first customer;
an allergy associated with the first customer; or the location associated with the restaurant being within a threshold distance of the location.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, to an assistant computing device, a second delivery instruction to cause an assistant of the service provider to travel with at least one of the couriers to deliver at least one of the food orders to at least one of the delivery locations.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
sending, to an assistant computing device, a second delivery instruction to cause an assistant of the service provider to travel with at least one of the couriers to deliver at least one of the food orders to at least one of the delivery locations.
4. The method of claim 1, the method further comprising:
identifying each of the couriers based at least in part on a region of operation of each courier.
4. The method of claim 1 , the method further comprising:
identifying each of the couriers based at least in part on a region of operation of each courier.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a delivery assistant to assist at least one of the couriers; and sending, to a delivery assistant computing device associated with the delivery assistant, a delivery assistant instruction to cause the delivery assistant to meet the courier at a meeting location and assist the courier in the delivery of at least one of the food orders.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a delivery assistant to assist at least one of the couriers; and
sending, to a delivery assistant computing device associated with the delivery assistant, a delivery assistant instruction to cause the delivery assistant to meet the courier at a meeting location and assist the courier in the delivery of at least one of the food orders.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring, in substantially real-time, parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations; wherein updating one or more of the pick-up times is performed based, at least in part, on the parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring, in substantially real-time, parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations; wherein updating one or more of the pick-up times is performed based, at least in part, on the parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at least one of the couriers based, at least in part, on one or more of: weather, traffic, or parking considerations.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying at least one of the couriers based, at least in part, on one or more of: traffic or parking considerations.
8. A computing system implemented using a server system comprising processor circuitry, the computing system being configured to cause:
processing a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery;
sending, to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders;
automatically identifying one or more couriers for the batch of food orders;
sending, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery;
monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times.
8. A computing system implemented using a server system comprising processor circuitry, the computing system being configured to cause:
processing a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery;
sending, to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders;
automatically identifying, at a first interval prior to one or more designated pick up times, one or more couriers for the batch of food orders based, at least in part, on traffic considerations;
sending, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery;
monitoring, in substantially real-time, traffic between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
responsive to the traffic, determining a re-route for delivery of at least one of the assigned set of food orders;
notifying a corresponding computing device associated with a courier of the re-route for delivery;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on traffic between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and causing display transmitting, on a user interface of [[to]] a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times.
9. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause:
a preference of a first customer associated with a first one of the client devices;
a dislike of the first customer;
an allergy associated with the first customer; or
the location associated with the restaurant being within a threshold distance of the location.
9. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause: a preference of a first customer associated with a first one of the client devices; a dislike of the first customer; an allergy associated with the first customer; or the location associated with the restaurant being within a threshold distance of the location.
10. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause:
sending, by the service computing device to an assistant computing device, a second delivery instruction to cause the assistant of the service provider to travel with at least one of the couriers to deliver at least one of the food orders to at least one of the delivery locations.
10. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause:
sending, by the service computing device to an assistant computing device, a second delivery instruction to cause the assistant of the service provider to travel with at least one of the couriers to deliver at least one of the food orders to at least one of the delivery locations.
11. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause:
identifying each of the couriers based at least in part on a region of operation of each courier.
11. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause:
identifying each of the couriers based at least in part on a region of operation of each courier.
12. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause:
identifying a delivery assistant to assist at least one of the couriers; and
sending, to a delivery assistant computing device associated with the delivery assistant, a delivery assistant instruction to cause the delivery assistant to meet the courier at a meeting location and assist the courier in the delivery of at least one of the food orders.
12. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause:
identifying a delivery assistant to assist at least one of the couriers; and
sending, to a delivery assistant computing device associated with the delivery assistant, a delivery assistant instruction to cause the delivery assistant to meet the courier at a meeting location and assist the courier in the delivery of at least one of the food orders.
13. The computing system of claim 8, wherein the delivery assistant instruction includes an instruction to:
monitoring, in substantially real-time, parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations;
wherein updating one or more of the pick-up times is performed based, at least in part, on the parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations.
13. The computing system of claim 8, wherein the delivery assistant instruction includes an instruction to: monitoring, in substantially real-time, parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations;
wherein updating one or more of the pick-up times is performed based, at least in part, on the parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery
14. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause:
identifying at least one of the couriers based, at least in part, on one or more of: weather, traffic, or parking considerations.
14. The computing system of claim 8, the computing system further configured to cause:
identifying at least one of the couriers based, at least in part, on one or more of: traffic or parking considerations.
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-readable program code capable of being executed by one or more processors when retrieved from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the program code comprising instructions configured to cause:
processing a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery;
sending, to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders;
automatically identifying one or more couriers for the batch of food orders;
sending, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery;
monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times.
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer- readable program code capable of being executed by one or more processors when retrieved from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the program code comprising instructions configured to cause:
processing a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery;
sending, to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders;
automatically identifying, at a first interval prior to one or more designated pick up times, one or more couriers for the batch of food orders based, at least in part, on traffic considerations;
sending, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery;
monitoring, in substantially real-time, traffic between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and responsive to the traffic, determining a re-route for delivery of at least one of the assigned set of food orders;
notifying a corresponding computing device associated with a courier of the re-route for delivery;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on traffic between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and causing display transmitting, on a user interface of [[to]] a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times.
16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the instructions being further configured to cause:
a preference of a first customer associated with a first one of the client devices;
a dislike of the first customer;
an allergy associated with the first customer; or
the location associated with the restaurant being within a threshold distance of the location.
16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the instructions being further configured to cause:
a preference of a first customer associated with a first one of the client devices;
a dislike of the first customer;
an allergy associated with the first customer; or the location associated with the restaurant being within a threshold distance of the location.
17. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the instructions being further configured to cause:
sending, by the service computing device to an assistant computing device, a second delivery instruction to cause an assistant of the service provider to travel with at least one of the couriers to deliver at least one of the food orders to at least one of the delivery locations.
17. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the instructions being further configured to cause:
sending, by the service computing device to an assistant computing device, a second delivery instruction to cause an assistant of the service provider to travel with at least one of the couriers to deliver at least one of the food orders to at least one of the delivery locations.
18. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the instructions being further configured to cause:
identifying each of the couriers based at least in part on a region of operation of each courier.
18. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the instructions being further configured to cause:
identifying each of the couriers based at least in part on a region of operation of each courier.
19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the instructions being further configured to cause:
identifying a delivery assistant to assist at least one of the couriers; and
sending, to a delivery assistant computing device associated with the delivery assistant, a delivery assistant instruction to cause the delivery assistant to meet the courier at a meeting location and assist the courier in the delivery of at least one of the food orders.
19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the instructions being further configured to cause:
identifying a delivery assistant to assist at least one of the couriers; and
sending, to a delivery assistant computing device associated with the delivery assistant, a delivery assistant instruction to cause the delivery assistant to meet the courier at a meeting location and assist the courier in the delivery of at least one of the food orders.
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, the instructions being further configured to cause:
identifying at least one of the couriers based, at least in part, on one or more of: weather, traffic, or parking considerations.
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, the instructions being further configured to cause:
identifying at least one of the couriers based, at least in part, on one or more of: traffic or parking considerations.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 8 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
A computing system implemented using a server system comprising processor circuitry, the computing system being configured to cause:
processing a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery;
sending, to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders;
automatically identifying one or more couriers for the batch of food orders;
sending, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery;
monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times..
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The highlighted limitations represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction. For example, “processing, sending, identifying, sending, monitoring, updating” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a commercial interaction but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
The claim recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including: A computing system implemented using a server system comprising processor circuitry, the computing system being configured to cause:
processing a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery;
sending, to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders;
automatically identifying one or more couriers for the batch of food orders;
sending, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery;
monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times..
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.) Specifically, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of connecting to a platform on a network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements to no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 8, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claim 8 does not provide an inventive concept and does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 1 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 8, and does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-readable program code reciting similar functions as claim 8, and does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are dependencies of claims 1, 8 and 15. The dependent claims do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. They recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0063435 A1 to Shah in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0107977 A1 to McHale.
Regarding Claim 1, Shah discloses a method comprising:
processing, by one or more servers, a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery; ([0011] the courier request comprising the total distance, the delivery time and address information [0005] receiving an order request for the at least one of goods and services at a management server, the order request being sent from a first electronic device of a first party,)
sending, by the one or more servers to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders; ([0021] the task information data comprises at least one of pick-up data including a pick-up time, and drop-off data including a drop-off time. [0153] the merchant is a restaurant, using a variation of the ordering and delivery system 100 described herein, the merchant may receive an order from an end-user or buyer for food items along with requested preparation times and/or delivery times.)
automatically identifying one or more couriers for the batch of food orders; ([0020] the order is a custom run and the task information data comprises instructing the courier to take a picture of any goods being picked up and/or dropped off. [0188] GUI 800A may also include various verification options including, but not limited to, at least one of a PIN Verification, a Picture Verification and a Tamper Proof seal Verification, for example. The verification options may be used so that at least one check may be made when a courier interacts with a contact at this particular waypoint to ensure that the tasks are performed correctly.)
sending, by the one or more servers, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery; ([0245] information about the order including distance, time of order preparation completion and one or more waypoint locations are sent to courier devices until one of the couriers accepts the order at 1080. At 1082, a pick-up time is determined based on the distance between the courier device 1056 that agreed to deliver the order and the merchant's location. At 1084, the courier device 1056 arrives at the merchant location, receives the merchant's identifier response and then sends the identifier response to the management server 150 for verification.)
But does not explicitly disclose monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times.
McHale, on the other hand, teaches monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather; updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times. ([0035] a courier computing device [0040] Embodiments of the courier management system 10 allows for multiple couriers to coordinate for a customer's order/shopping list. One courier may perform shopping while a second courier performs the delivery. Further still, a third courier may meet the second courier at the delivery location for assisting in unloading or setup responsibilities of the second courier based on the shopping list/order. (one courier would be the assistant, tasked with providing quality assurance of the order at the restaurant, a second courier would then meet the first courier at the restaurant and deliver the order to the customer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Shah, the features of McHale, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shah, to include the teachings of McHale, in order to provide delivery of purchased items (McHale, [0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Shah in view of McHale teaches the method of claim 1.
Shah discloses identifying the restaurant based at least in part on at least one of: a preference of a first customer associated with a first one of the client devices; a dislike of the first customer; an allergy associated with the first customer; or the location associated with the restaurant being within a threshold distance of the location. ([0104] The mapping module 152 may use the first and second coordinate data 235a and 235b to calculate a distance 240 between the first waypoint 215a and the second waypoint 215b, to generate a route 245 between the first waypoint 215a and the second waypoint 215b, and to generate an Estimated Delivery Time (EDT) 250 for the route. [0090] account record includes the buyer’s product preferences [0111] The courier device that is closest to the first address may be given the highest priority. In other embodiments, the located courier devices may be otherwise prioritized or categorized in another manner in terms of which courier would be preferred for carrying out the order.)
Regarding Claim 3, Shah in view of McHale teaches the method of claim 1.
Shah does not explicitly teach sending, to an assistant computing device, a second delivery instruction to cause an assistant of the service provider to travel with at least one of the couriers to deliver at least one of the food orders to at least one of the delivery locations.
McHale, on the other hand, teaches sending, to an assistant computing device, a second delivery instruction to cause an assistant of the service provider to travel with at least one of the couriers to deliver at least one of the food orders to at least one of the delivery locations. ([0040] Embodiments of the courier management system 10 allows for multiple couriers to coordinate for a customer's order/shopping list. One courier may perform shopping while a second courier performs the delivery. Further still, a third courier may meet the second courier at the delivery location for assisting in unloading or setup responsibilities of the second courier based on the shopping list/order. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Shah, the features of McHale, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shah, to include the teachings of McHale, in order to provide delivery of purchased items (McHale, [0003]).
Regarding Claim 4, Shah in view of McHale teaches the method of claim 1.
Shah discloses identifying each of the couriers based at least in part on a region of operation of each courier. ([0111] The courier device that is closest to the first address may be given the highest priority. In other embodiments, the located courier devices may be otherwise prioritized or categorized in another manner in terms of which courier would be preferred for carrying out the order. [0024] sending a courier request to a plurality of courier devices to locate one courier that will deliver the order; and upon acceptance of the courier request, sending an identifier for each waypoint to a contact at each waypoint, wherein the identifiers are used to verify the completion of tasks by the courier at each of the waypoints.)
Regarding Claim 5, Shah in view of McHale teaches the method of claim 1.
Shah discloses identifying a delivery assistant to assist at least one of the couriers; and sending, to a delivery assistant computing device associated with the delivery assistant, a delivery assistant instruction to cause the delivery assistant to meet the courier at a meeting location and assist the courier in the delivery of at least one of the food orders. ([0111] The courier device that is closest to the first address may be given the highest priority. In other embodiments, the located courier devices may be otherwise prioritized or categorized in another manner in terms of which courier would be preferred for carrying out the order. [0024] sending a courier request to a plurality of courier devices to locate one courier that will deliver the order; and upon acceptance of the courier request, sending an identifier for each waypoint to a contact at each waypoint, wherein the identifiers are used to verify the completion of tasks by the courier at each of the waypoints.)
Regarding Claim 8, Shah discloses a computing system implemented using a server system comprising processor circuitry, the computing system being configured to cause:
processing, by one or more servers, a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery; ([0011] the courier request comprising the total distance, the delivery time and address information [0005] receiving an order request for the at least one of goods and services at a management server, the order request being sent from a first electronic device of a first party,)
sending, by the one or more servers to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders; ([0021] the task information data comprises at least one of pick-up data including a pick-up time, and drop-off data including a drop-off time. [0153] the merchant is a restaurant, using a variation of the ordering and delivery system 100 described herein, the merchant may receive an order from an end-user or buyer for food items along with requested preparation times and/or delivery times.)
automatically identifying one or more couriers for the batch of food orders; ([0020] the order is a custom run and the task information data comprises instructing the courier to take a picture of any goods being picked up and/or dropped off. [0188] GUI 800A may also include various verification options including, but not limited to, at least one of a PIN Verification, a Picture Verification and a Tamper Proof seal Verification, for example. The verification options may be used so that at least one check may be made when a courier interacts with a contact at this particular waypoint to ensure that the tasks are performed correctly.)
sending, by the one or more servers, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery; ([0245] information about the order including distance, time of order preparation completion and one or more waypoint locations are sent to courier devices until one of the couriers accepts the order at 1080. At 1082, a pick-up time is determined based on the distance between the courier device 1056 that agreed to deliver the order and the merchant's location. At 1084, the courier device 1056 arrives at the merchant location, receives the merchant's identifier response and then sends the identifier response to the management server 150 for verification.)
But does not explicitly disclose monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times.
McHale, on the other hand, teaches monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather; updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times. ([0035] a courier computing device [0040] Embodiments of the courier management system 10 allows for multiple couriers to coordinate for a customer's order/shopping list. One courier may perform shopping while a second courier performs the delivery. Further still, a third courier may meet the second courier at the delivery location for assisting in unloading or setup responsibilities of the second courier based on the shopping list/order. (one courier would be the assistant, tasked with providing quality assurance of the order at the restaurant, a second courier would then meet the first courier at the restaurant and deliver the order to the customer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Shah, the features of McHale, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shah, to include the teachings of McHale, in order to provide delivery of purchased items (McHale, [0003]).
Claim 9 recites a system comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 2. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Claim 10 recites a system comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 3. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Claim 11 recites a system comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 4. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Claim 12 recites a system comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 5. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding Claim 15, Shah discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-readable program code capable of being executed by one or more processors when retrieved from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the program code comprising instructions configured to cause:
processing, by one or more servers, a plurality of food orders, each food order of the plurality of food orders being received from a corresponding one of a plurality of client devices and including a location for delivery; ([0011] the courier request comprising the total distance, the delivery time and address information [0005] receiving an order request for the at least one of goods and services at a management server, the order request being sent from a first electronic device of a first party,)
sending, by the one or more servers to a restaurant computing device associated with a restaurant corresponding to the plurality of food orders, a batch of food orders including the plurality of food orders and indicating a pick-up time for each food order in the batch of food orders; ([0021] the task information data comprises at least one of pick-up data including a pick-up time, and drop-off data including a drop-off time. [0153] the merchant is a restaurant, using a variation of the ordering and delivery system 100 described herein, the merchant may receive an order from an end-user or buyer for food items along with requested preparation times and/or delivery times.)
automatically identifying one or more couriers for the batch of food orders; ([0020] the order is a custom run and the task information data comprises instructing the courier to take a picture of any goods being picked up and/or dropped off. [0188] GUI 800A may also include various verification options including, but not limited to, at least one of a PIN Verification, a Picture Verification and a Tamper Proof seal Verification, for example. The verification options may be used so that at least one check may be made when a courier interacts with a contact at this particular waypoint to ensure that the tasks are performed correctly.)
sending, by the one or more servers, for each courier of the one or more couriers, a delivery instruction to a corresponding computing device associated with the courier to cause the courier to pick up an assigned set of one or more food orders of the batch of food orders at the restaurant and deliver each food order of the assigned set of food orders to the corresponding location for delivery; ([0245] information about the order including distance, time of order preparation completion and one or more waypoint locations are sent to courier devices until one of the couriers accepts the order at 1080. At 1082, a pick-up time is determined based on the distance between the courier device 1056 that agreed to deliver the order and the merchant's location. At 1084, the courier device 1056 arrives at the merchant location, receives the merchant's identifier response and then sends the identifier response to the management server 150 for verification.)
But does not explicitly disclose monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather;
updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and
transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times.
McHale, on the other hand, teaches monitoring, in substantially real-time, one or more considerations between a location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations, the one or more considerations including one or more of: traffic, parking, or weather; updating one or more of the pick-up times based, at least in part, on the one or more considerations between the location associated with the restaurant and the delivery locations; and transmitting, to a device associated with the restaurant, a message indicating the updated one or more pick-up times. ([0035] a courier computing device [0040] Embodiments of the courier management system 10 allows for multiple couriers to coordinate for a customer's order/shopping list. One courier may perform shopping while a second courier performs the delivery. Further still, a third courier may meet the second courier at the delivery location for assisting in unloading or setup responsibilities of the second courier based on the shopping list/order. (one courier would be the assistant, tasked with providing quality assurance of the order at the restaurant, a second courier would then meet the first courier at the restaurant and deliver the order to the customer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Shah, the features of McHale, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shah, to include the teachings of McHale, in order to provide delivery of purchased items (McHale, [0003]).
Claim 16 recites a computer readable medium comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 2. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Claim 17 recites a computer readable medium comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 3. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Claim 18 recites a computer readable medium comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 4. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Claim 19 recites a computer readable medium comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 5. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0063435 A1 to Shah in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0107977 A1 to McHale in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0288692 A1 to Dupray.
Regarding Claim 6, Shah in view of McHale teaches the method of claim 1.
Shah does not explicitly teach monitoring, in substantially real-time, parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations; wherein updating one or more of the pick-up times is performed based, at least in part, on the parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations..
Dupray, on the other hand, teaches monitoring, in substantially real-time, parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations; wherein updating one or more of the pick-up times is performed based, at least in part, on the parking availability at or near at least one of the delivery locations. ([0252] One embodiment of this method and system utilizes the personnel of businesses that travel predetermined routes through the radio coverage area (e.g., a delivery and/or pickup service) to generate such data using a conventional mobile station 140 while traversing their routes through the radio coverage area. One example of such personnel is the postal workers, and in particular, the mail carriers having predetermined (likely repetitive) routes for mail pickup and/or delivery at predetermined sites (denoted hereinafter as "mail pickup/delivery sites" or simply "mail sites") [0344] Note that notifications of available parking spaces in real time (or nearly so) can be provided by, e.g., marking a center of each parking space with a distinctive insignia or design that can be readily identified via video input from one or more electronic monitoring devices that view the parking spaces. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Shah, the features of Dupray, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shah, to include the teachings of Dupray, in order to provide efficient use of time (Dupray, [0100]).
Claim 13 recites a system comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 6. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Claims 7, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0063435 A1 to Shah in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0107977 A1 to McHale in view of U.S. Patent No. 10832206 B2 to Lafrance.
Regarding Claim 7, Shah in view of McHale teaches the method of claim 1.
Shah does not explicitly teach identifying at least one of the couriers based, at least in part, on one or more of: weather, traffic, or parking considerations.
Lafrance, on the other hand, teaches identifying at least one of the couriers based, at least in part, on one or more of: weather, traffic, or parking considerations. ([Col 14 Ln 25-30] it should be appreciated that traffic levels are monitored in real time (or near real time) and zones 153,154,155 are updated to account for changes in traffic patterns. [Claim 1] connectable via the network to a plurality of carriers each having a carrier device, each carrier enabling items to be transported from pick up locations for the items to a delivery location associated with the consumer, … to identify a plurality of traffic zones; and using the refined sub sectors to map the optimized delivery route… the intermediary server device communicating the delivery plan to the plurality of carriers via the network to determine in response multiple available delivery time windows, provided by multiple carriers, according to at least transit time dictated by the optimized delivery route in the delivery plan, respective carrier availability, and respective carrier capacity; [Col 13 Ln 55-60] The geographic region 150 is split into sub sectors 151 using data attributes including without limitation weather 158, traffic 157, and construction 156. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the method, as taught by Shah, the features of Lafrance, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shah, to include the teachings of Lafrance, in order to provide efficient delivery of products (Lafrance, [Col 1 Ln 55-60]).
Claim 14 recites a system comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 7. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Claim 20 recites a computer readable medium comprising substantially similar limitations as Claim 7. The claim is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle T. Kringen whose telephone number is (571)270-0159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764. 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.
/MICHELLE T KRINGEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689