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 .
This Office Action is in response to initial filing on 12/09/2024.
Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/09/2024 and 01/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/15/2024. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 9, it is recited “the user device of the user.” Perhaps, Applicant meant to recite -- the device of the user-- OR -- the user device --., to be more consistent with previous limitations. Appropriate correction/clarification 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 §§ 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.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11785415 to Jamkhedkar et al in view of Proctor, JR et al (20100061294).
Instant claim 2 corresponds to conflicting claim 1 except it does not require the one store reference indicating one or more tenants accessible to a user via an interface of the device.
In analogous art, Proctor discloses at least one service accessible to the user via an interface which is associated with a first tenant of one or more tenants (par. 63 and Figures A-B). It would have been obvious to one of skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of the conflicting claim to include at least one tenant to be accessed by the user for the purpose of providing assistance and ensure the customer is receiving proper services thus increasing the customer’s shopping satisfaction.
Similarly, claims 14 and 18 correspond to conflicting claim 1 except it does not require the one store reference indicating one or more tenants accessible to a user via an interface of the device.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridharan (20130198039) in view of Proctor, JR et al (20100061294).
Regarding claim 2, Sridharan discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a first request to access one or more services of a platform, wherein the first request is received from a user device of a user ([0038], receiving a location of a customer via a mobile device, receiving a request for a service call center connection from a customer);
determining that the user device is at a first location when the first request is received ([0038], receiving a location of a customer via a mobile device. The POSITA would understand this a disclosure that a user device is at a first location);
providing, based on the determining that the user device is at the first location when the first request is received (Abstract: customer location determined and determining availability of one sale associate within location threshold of customer location), a first type of service of the one or more services to the user device (Figures 7, 11, and 12; Abstract, customer location determined and determining availability of one sale associate within location threshold of customer location. Thus, assistance representing service; see also par. [0031], customer receiving personalized support). Note that determining the availability of one sale representative within close location to the customer to provide assistance is fairly characterized as first type of service of the one or more services to the user device);
receiving a second request to access the one or more services of the platform, wherein the second request is received from the user device after the first request is received (Figures 7, 11, and 12; Abstract, customer location determined and determining availability of one sale associate within location threshold of customer location (Thus, assistance representing service; see also par. [0031], customer receiving personalized support);
determining that the user device is at a second location different from the first location when the second request is received (the application identifies a customer location and allows a third-party such as a sales associate, to proactively contact the application and thus provide further assistance to the customer. The POSITA would understand this disclosure that a user device may be at different location from the first location).
Sridharan does not expressly disclose providing, based on the determining that the user device is at the second location when the second request is received, a second type of service of the one or more services to the user device.
However, Proctor. JR discloses providing, based on the determining that the user device is at the second location when the second request is received, a second type of service of the one or more services to the user device (par. [0063], server sends message stating services available in proximity with a list of available merchants (e.g., tenants); par. [0068]; Figures 8A-8B and par. [0046, passing relevant information back to user's device 202 - par. [0063], [0066] and d [0068]).
The teachings of Sridharan and Proctor, JR are related as both teach the concept of customer assistance based on customer location. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sridharan to include Proctor's teachings of providing assistance for the purpose of ensuring that a customer is receiving effective and proper assistance therefore increasing the customer’s satisfaction.
Regarding claim 3, Sridharan discloses the method of claim 2, wherein: the first type of service is provided via a user interface of the platform ([0017] FIG. 9 is an illustration of an example screen of a software application that may be run on, for example, a mobile or handheld device of a user, showing a listing of business locations that is displayed in response to a customer request for assistance, …); and the second type of service is provided at least in part by dynamically reconfiguring the user interface of the platform ([0042] the distributed customer service agent 220 can be any individual with access to a service center call device, such as a mobile service center call device. The agent may be located locally to the call initiator, or may be located anywhere remotely in the agent network. For example, the agent may be located in the same service establishment (e.g., retail sale) location as the caller, or may be at another sales location, such as an outlet, service department, call center, …).
Regarding claim 4, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the user interface is displayable via a web browser ([0051] an example user interface 400 shown in schematic form. In the illustrated example, the user interface 400 may be displayed on a communication device, such as the smart phone 336) or a computer application different from the web browser.
Regarding claim 5, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses the method of claim 4, wherein: the first type of service is provided via the computer application and the second type of service is provided by the web browser ([0070] for example, acquire the software application via a download from a web site of the business or organization sponsoring the software application, or from a centralized source of software applications such as, for example, an "app store."); or the first type of service is provided via the web browser and the second type of service is provided by the computer application.
Regarding claim 6, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the reconfiguring the user interface is performed automatically without requiring an input from the user ([0057] a user can start a service call with an agent by announcing their location (either automatically and/or manually), by "checking-in" to a particular location, …).
Regarding claim 7, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses method of claim 2, wherein: the first type of service is associated with a first tenant of the platform ([0017] FIG. 9 is an illustration of an example screen of a software application that may be run on, for example, a mobile or handheld device of a user, showing a listing of business locations that is displayed in response to a customer request for assistance, …); the second type of service is associated with a second tenant of the platform; and the second tenant is different from the first tenant ([0042] the distributed customer service agent 220 can be any individual with access to a service center call device, such as a mobile service center call device. The agent may be located locally to the call initiator, or may be located anywhere remotely in the agent network. For example, the agent may be located in the same service establishment (e.g., retail sale) location as the caller, or may be at another sales location, such as an outlet, service department, call center, …).
Regarding claim 8, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses method of claim 7, wherein: the first type of service is provided at least in part by accessing an identifier of the first tenant, a type of service provided by the first tenant, or a geographical coordinate of the first tenant ([0048] as a customer 210 indicates their presence in a retail environment through the mobile application, the system 200 will identify a customer service agent that can assist the customer); and the second type of service is provided at least in part by accessing an identifier of the second tenant, a type of service provided by the second tenant, or a geographical coordinate of the second tenant ([0026] The application identifies a customer location and allows a third-party such as a sales associate, to proactively contact the application and thus provide further assistance to the customer).
Regarding claim 9, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses method of claim 7, wherein: the first tenant comprises a first merchant that has a first physical store location within a specified range of the first location ([0048] as a customer 210 indicates their presence in a retail environment through the mobile application, the system 200 will identify a customer service agent that can assist the customer); or the second tenant comprises a second merchant that has a second physical store location within the specified range of the second location.
Regarding claim 10, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses method of claim 7, further comprising onboarding a plurality of tenants to the platform, wherein the plurality of tenants includes the first tenant and the second tenant (par. [0063], server sends message stating services available in proximity with a list of available merchants (e.g., tenants); par. [0068]; Figures 8A-8B and par. [0046, passing relevant information back to user's device 202 - par. [0063], [0066] and d [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses method of claim 2, wherein the one or more services comprise: a selection of items for order, an access to a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), an access to a point-of-sale (POS) device (the agent may be located in the same service establishment ([0042] e.g., retail sale, location as the caller, or may be at another sales location, such as an outlet, service department, call center, etc.), an access to an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM), or a checkout for a transaction.
Regarding claim 12, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses method of claim 2, wherein the providing the first type of service or the providing of the second type of service is performed at least in part via accessing a software development kit (SDK) ([0017] FIG. 9 is an illustration of an example screen of a software application that may be run on, for example, a mobile or handheld device of a user, showing a listing of business locations that is displayed in response to a customer request for assistance).
Regarding claim 13, in the obvious combination, Sridharan discloses method of claim 2, wherein multiple types of services of the one or more services are offered at the first location, and wherein the method further comprises: providing, via a user interface of the platform, a selection mechanism via which a selection of the multiple types of services can be made ([0048] as a customer 210 indicates their presence in a retail environment through the mobile application, the system 200 will identify a customer service agent that can assist the customer); and detecting the selection, via the selection mechanism, of the first type of service from the multiple types of services ([0018] FIG. 10 shows an illustration of an example screen that displays additional details for the customer-selected business location of FIG. 9, including a list of departments/product categories at that business location); wherein the first type of service is provided based on the detecting of the selection of the first type of service (Figures 7, 11, and 12; Abstract, customer location determined and determining availability of one sale associate within location threshold of customer location. Thus, assistance representing service; see also par. [0031], customer receiving personalized support). Note that determining the availability of one sale representative within close location to the customer to provide assistance is fairly characterized as first type of service of the one or more services to the user device).
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Sridharan, Abstract: “system”). Sridharan further discloses determining that a plurality of tenants have been onboarded to a multi-tenant platform, wherein the multi-tenant platform is configured to provide a plurality of services associated with the plurality of tenants ([0041, a customer 210 (e.g., a user, consumer, shopper, etc.), having need of customer assistance, places a phone call, such as a video phone call, to a customer service server) and a user location corresponding to the geographical location ( [0041], the network 12 is coupled to the host system server 68 to distribute the call to one of a plurality of customer service agents 220 geographically distributed in independent locations; and ([0070] and Figure 8, displays the screen 800 may be made available by, for example, a retail business or sponsor that may have "brick-and-mortar" locations and/or e-commerce storefronts of interest to the customer. Thus, multi-tenant platform is configured to provide a plurality of services associated with the plurality of tenants).
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 11, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 14, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Sridharan, [0063] “[0063] Referring to FIG. 7, …computer system and/or provided on a non-transitory computer-readable medium to implement the connection portion of the system described herein. …”).
Claim 19 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to claim 11, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 contains subject matter similar to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights