Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/895,199

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LOCAL SHOPPING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 24, 2024
Examiner
SHAAWAT, MUSSA A
Art Unit
3669
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
665 granted / 876 resolved
+23.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
905
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§103
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
§102
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 876 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owens US pg. Pub. No. (2003/0004831) referred to hereinafter as Owens in view of Rathod US Pg. Pub. No. (2021/0042724) referred to hereinafter as Rathod. As per claim 1, Owens teaches a system for assisting in local shopping, the system comprises a processor and a memory, the system configured to implement a method comprising: receiving, through an interface by the system, a geographical location and a distance value from the geographical location (see at least abstract, summary, para 28); receiving a list of items, through the interface by the system, forming a digital cart (see at least abstract, summary, para 16-17, 21); determining, by the system, a geographical area based on the geographical location and the distance value using geographical positioning system and geographical information technologies (see at least abstract, summary, para 34, 54); enquiring, by the system, digital inventory of predefined stores in the geographical area to determine selected stores having all the items in the digital cart (see at least abstract, summary, para 25, 61, 62, 66, 219); determining, by the system, a cart value for each of the selected stores (see at least abstract, summary, para 62, 66, 222, 228). Although Owens teaches an interface, a map on a user device comprises a geographical area or position, Owens does not expressly teach implementing a dynamic map window through the interface on a user device, wherein the dynamic map window comprises icons pointing to geographical locations of the respective selected stores on the geographical map, and cart values of the selected stores presented adjacent to the respective icons. However Rathod teaches implementing a dynamic map window through the interface on a user device, wherein the dynamic map window comprises icons pointing to geographical locations of the respective selected stores on the geographical map, and cart values of the selected stores presented adjacent to the respective icons (see at least abstract, summary, Para 438-441, 343, figs. 32-35, 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rathod into the disclosure of Owens in order to provide the user with an enhanced convenient shopping system thereby increasing customer satisfaction. As per claims 2-5 Owens does not expressly teach the limitations of claims 2-5, however Rathod teaches wherein each icon is actionable and configured to receive a selection from a user; wherein the method further comprises: receiving, through the interface, by the system, the selection of a store from the selected stores; and processing, by the system, the digital cart from the store for ordering; wherein the geographical map, the icons, and the cart value are presented as layers in the dynamic map window, wherein each layer is configured to be switched between visible and hidden and wherein the icons incorporate logos of the respective selected stores (see at least abstract, summary, Para 438-441, 343, figs. 32-35, 53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rathod into the disclosure of Owens in order to provide the user with an enhanced convenient shopping system thereby increasing customer satisfaction. As per claims 6-9, the limitations of claims 6-9 are similar to the limitations of claims 1-5, therefore they are rejected based on the same rationale. Conclusion Please refer to from 892 for cited references. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSSA A SHAAWAT whose telephone number is (313)446-6592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm. 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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. /MUSSA A SHAAWAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 24, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595070
METHOD OF OPERATING A ROTORCRAFT IN A SINGLE ENGINE OPERATION MODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595049
METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A ROTORCRAFT, ASSOCIATED ROTORCRAFT AND COMPUTER PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12583605
FAST THRUST RESPONSE USING OPTIMAL POWER SPLITTING IN HYBRID ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583606
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AIRCRAFT ENERGY OPTIMIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576715
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+6.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 876 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month