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 the Claims
Claims 1-16 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection office action mailed 10/22/2025. Claims 1, 7, 13 and 16 were amended; claim 14 was cancelled, and no claim was added in a reply filed 03/06/2026. Therefore claims 1-13 and 15-16 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 6-7, filed 03/06/2026, with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejections for claims 1-6, 12-13 and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 7-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “displaying a list of products available; receiving a product selection and an identity of the consumer; instructing a product dispenser to dispense a selected product; determining the selected product is positioned at a delivery area; communicating a confirmation signal of the presence of the selected product at the delivery area; and delivering the selected product to the consumer.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites on a mobile electronic device of a consumer, a web server, the mobile electronic device, a sensor, and autonomously retrieving, by mobile delivery unit, the selected product from the delivery area and loading the selected product to a mobile delivery unit via a gripper for delivery to the consumer. Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than field of use and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component respectively. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claim 8 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (receiving a payment from a mobile device is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 9 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 10 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (web server and memory of the mobile delivery unit is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 11 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (detecting a gripper of a mobile delivery unit in the product dispensing area and grasping the selected product via the gripper is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions) or providing significantly more limitations.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 20190333036) in view of Rivalto (US 20180276602) and Brady (US 10,310,500).
As per claim 1, Bryant discloses a method of automated vending and delivery of a product to consumers, the method comprising:
displaying a list of products available in a predetermined area on an electronic device (paragraph 6, 27, 56, 58);
receiving, at a web server, a selection of a product from the list of products on the electronic device (paragraph 6, 27, 29, 56, 58);
instructing the mobile delivery unit to autonomously deliver the selected product to the consumer (paragraph 48, 60).
However, Bryant does not disclose but Rivalto discloses dispensing, at a dispenser, the selected product to a delivery area (paragraph 49);
determining, via a sensor, the selected product is positioned at a delivery area (paragraph 65, “Once the dispensing unit 108 has completed its operation, it will send a message indicating normal or error operation to the cloud server 43, which will in turn send the message up the system levels where it is recorded against stored inventory data 60 and/or error message data 63 in the database server 42. These messages from the connected devices 45, such as the dispensing unit 108, merely indicate normal operations or a failure (error) in operation (e.g., that the dispensing unit 108 rotary motor turned the appropriate amount or not. Sensors 145 (see above) located in the product dispensing area 179 and/or dispensing chute 140 may be used to confirm the dispensing of the selected product(s) 128 based on stored product information 62 in the database server 42.”);
communicating, via a dispenser communication assembly, a confirmation signal of the presence of the selected product at the delivery area to the web server (paragraph 65, “Once the dispensing unit 108 has completed its operation, it will send a message indicating normal or error operation to the cloud server 43, which will in turn send the message up the system levels where it is recorded against stored inventory data 60 and/or error message data 63 in the database server 42. These messages from the connected devices 45, such as the dispensing unit 108, merely indicate normal operations or a failure (error) in operation (e.g., that the dispensing unit 108 rotary motor turned the appropriate amount or not. Sensors 145 (see above) located in the product dispensing area 179 and/or dispensing chute 140 may be used to confirm the dispensing of the selected product(s) 128 based on stored product information 62 in the database server 42.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Rivalto in the teaching of Bryant, in order to indicate normal operation or failure to the cloud server (please see Rivalto paragraph 65).
However, Bryant does not disclose but Brady discloses retrieving, via a mobile delivery unit, the selected product from the delivery area (20:1-10, “(70) In some embodiments, the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i may be programmed or configured to perform one or more missions or tasks in an integrated manner. For example, the control system 260-i may be programmed to instruct the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i to travel to an origin, e.g., the fulfillment center 230, and to begin the performance of a task there, such as by retrieving an item at the origin using the item engagement system 274-i, before proceeding to a destination, e.g., the customer 240, along a selected route (e.g., an optimal route)”, 19:6-19, “(65) The item engagement system 274-i may be any mechanical component, e.g., a robotic arm, for engaging an item or for disengaging the item, as desired. For example, when the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i is tasked with delivering items or materials from an origin to a destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to engage the items or materials at the origin and to deposit the items or materials in a cargo bay or other storage compartment prior to departing. After the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i arrives at the destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to retrieve the items or materials within the cargo bay or storage compartment, and deposit the items or materials in a desired location at the destination.”);
the mobile delivery unit comprising: an arm; a gripper attached to the arm and configured to grasp the selected product and retrieve it from the delivery area; a receptacle configured to store the product; and a delivery unit communication assembly configured to receive the instructions (fig. 8d, 20:1-10, “(70) In some embodiments, the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i may be programmed or configured to perform one or more missions or tasks in an integrated manner. For example, the control system 260-i may be programmed to instruct the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i to travel to an origin, e.g., the fulfillment center 230, and to begin the performance of a task there, such as by retrieving an item at the origin using the item engagement system 274-i, before proceeding to a destination, e.g., the customer 240, along a selected route (e.g., an optimal route)”, 19:6-19, “(65) The item engagement system 274-i may be any mechanical component, e.g., a robotic arm, for engaging an item or for disengaging the item, as desired. For example, when the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i is tasked with delivering items or materials from an origin to a destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to engage the items or materials at the origin and to deposit the items or materials in a cargo bay or other storage compartment prior to departing. After the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i arrives at the destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to retrieve the items or materials within the cargo bay or storage compartment, and deposit the items or materials in a desired location at the destination.”) ; and
delivering, via the mobile delivery unit, the selected product to the consumer (20:1-10, “(70) In some embodiments, the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i may be programmed or configured to perform one or more missions or tasks in an integrated manner. For example, the control system 260-i may be programmed to instruct the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i to travel to an origin, e.g., the fulfillment center 230, and to begin the performance of a task there, such as by retrieving an item at the origin using the item engagement system 274-i, before proceeding to a destination, e.g., the customer 240, along a selected route (e.g., an optimal route)”, 19:6-19, “(65) The item engagement system 274-i may be any mechanical component, e.g., a robotic arm, for engaging an item or for disengaging the item, as desired. For example, when the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i is tasked with delivering items or materials from an origin to a destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to engage the items or materials at the origin and to deposit the items or materials in a cargo bay or other storage compartment prior to departing. After the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i arrives at the destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to retrieve the items or materials within the cargo bay or storage compartment, and deposit the items or materials in a desired location at the destination.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Brady in the teaching of Bryant, in order to transfer the items between vehicles (please see Brady abstract).
As per claim 2, Bryant does not disclose but Brady discloses loading the product into a receptacle of the mobile delivery unit (19:6-19) (please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 3, Bryant discloses wherein instructing the mobile delivery unit to deliver the product to the consumer comprises: delivering the product to a pickup area (paragraph 48, If drone delivery is selected, in accordance with the present teachings, at step 228, a drone 30 (FIG. 1) acquires at the drone delivery platform 60 and delivers the package. This option is likely to be particularly useful for short haul urban trips (e.g., apartment complexes, college campuses etc.) and long haul rural deliveries.”)
As per claim 5, Bryant discloses further comprising: selecting a second product from the list of products (paragraph 48, user is able to repeat transaction for different item); and receiving the second product from the mobile delivery unit (paragraph 48).
As per claim 7, Bryant discloses a method of automated vending and delivery, the method comprising:
displaying a list of products available on a mobile electronic device of a consumer (paragraph 6, 27, 56, 58);
receiving, at a web server, a product selection and an identity of the consumer from the mobile electronic device (paragraph 6, 27, 29, 56, 58);
instructing a product dispenser to dispense a selected product (paragraph 31, 33, 48);
delivering the selected product to the consumer (paragraph 48, 60).
However, Bryant does not disclose but Rivalto discloses
determining, via a sensor, the selected product is positioned at a delivery area (paragraph 65, “Once the dispensing unit 108 has completed its operation, it will send a message indicating normal or error operation to the cloud server 43, which will in turn send the message up the system levels where it is recorded against stored inventory data 60 and/or error message data 63 in the database server 42. These messages from the connected devices 45, such as the dispensing unit 108, merely indicate normal operations or a failure (error) in operation (e.g., that the dispensing unit 108 rotary motor turned the appropriate amount or not. Sensors 145 (see above) located in the product dispensing area 179 and/or dispensing chute 140 may be used to confirm the dispensing of the selected product(s) 128 based on stored product information 62 in the database server 42.”);
communicating a confirmation signal of the presence of the selected product at the delivery area to the web server (paragraph 65, “Once the dispensing unit 108 has completed its operation, it will send a message indicating normal or error operation to the cloud server 43, which will in turn send the message up the system levels where it is recorded against stored inventory data 60 and/or error message data 63 in the database server 42. These messages from the connected devices 45, such as the dispensing unit 108, merely indicate normal operations or a failure (error) in operation (e.g., that the dispensing unit 108 rotary motor turned the appropriate amount or not. Sensors 145 (see above) located in the product dispensing area 179 and/or dispensing chute 140 may be used to confirm the dispensing of the selected product(s) 128 based on stored product information 62 in the database server 42.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Rivalto in the teaching of Bryant, in order to indicate normal operation or failure to the cloud server (please see Rivalto paragraph 65).
However, Bryant does not disclose but Brady discloses autonomously retrieving, by mobile delivery unit, the selected product from the delivery area and loading the selected product to a mobile delivery unit via a gripper for delivery to the consumer (fig. 8D, 20:1-10, “(70) In some embodiments, the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i may be programmed or configured to perform one or more missions or tasks in an integrated manner. For example, the control system 260-i may be programmed to instruct the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i to travel to an origin, e.g., the fulfillment center 230, and to begin the performance of a task there, such as by retrieving an item at the origin using the item engagement system 274-i, before proceeding to a destination, e.g., the customer 240, along a selected route (e.g., an optimal route)”, 19:6-19, “(65) The item engagement system 274-i may be any mechanical component, e.g., a robotic arm, for engaging an item or for disengaging the item, as desired. For example, when the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i is tasked with delivering items or materials from an origin to a destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to engage the items or materials at the origin and to deposit the items or materials in a cargo bay or other storage compartment prior to departing. After the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i arrives at the destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to retrieve the items or materials within the cargo bay or storage compartment, and deposit the items or materials in a desired location at the destination.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Brady in the teaching of Bryant, in order to transfer the items between vehicles (please see Brady abstract).
As per claim 8, Bryant discloses receiving a payment from the mobile electronic device of the consumer (paragraph 47-48, 58-59).
As per claim 11, Bryant discloses a product dispensing area at the origin (paragraph 49). Bryant does not disclose but Brady discloses detecting a gripper of a mobile delivery unit in the product pickup area and grasping the selected product via the gripper (20:1-10, “(70) In some embodiments, the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i may be programmed or configured to perform one or more missions or tasks in an integrated manner. For example, the control system 260-i may be programmed to instruct the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i to travel to an origin, e.g., the fulfillment center 230, and to begin the performance of a task there, such as by retrieving an item at the origin using the item engagement system 274-i, before proceeding to a destination, e.g., the customer 240, along a selected route (e.g., an optimal route)”, 19:6-19, “(65) The item engagement system 274-i may be any mechanical component, e.g., a robotic arm, for engaging an item or for disengaging the item, as desired. For example, when the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i is tasked with delivering items or materials from an origin to a destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to engage the items or materials at the origin and to deposit the items or materials in a cargo bay or other storage compartment prior to departing. After the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i arrives at the destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to retrieve the items or materials within the cargo bay or storage compartment, and deposit the items or materials in a desired location at the destination.”)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 16, Bryant discloses wherein the mobile delivery unit comprises a first communication assembly, and the product dispenser comprises a second communication assembly, and wherein the web server is in communication with the first communication assembly and the second communication assembly (fig. 6, paragraph 29, 32, 51).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 20190333036) in view of Rivalto (US 20180276602) and Brady (US 10,310,500), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Hashisho (US 11,356,501).
As per claim 4, Bryant discloses selecting a delivery criteria (paragraph 48, “delivery to college campus or apartment complex”). However, Bryant does not disclose but Hashisho discloses confirming the delivery criteria is satisfied, wherein the delivery criteria comprises at least one of a delivery location and a selected recipient (col. 18:42-67, “In one embodiment, upon reaching the cell in step 603, the navigation module 307 can transmit a destination identifier (e.g., a MAC address, a recipient name/address/contact number, an order number, etc.) associated with the target beacon (e.g., UE 103) from the drone to a domain beacon (e.g., the domain beacon 221 in FIG. 2B, the root node R in FIG. 5C, etc.) of the domain in the cell.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Hashisho in the teaching of Bryant, in order to support drone delivery (e.g., to mobile targets) using beacon positioning (Hashisho, col.1:27-30).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 20190333036) in view of Rivalto (US 20180276602) and Brady (US 10,310,500), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5, Kennon (US 20220027882).
As per claim 6, Bryant does not disclose but Kennon discloses wherein the second product is located separately from the first product (paragraph 13, the vending machine itself and a remote associated storage area are checked for availability of the ordered item. The first product can be in the vending machine and the second item can be in the remote associated storage area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Kennon in the teaching of Bryant, 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 20190333036) in view of Rivalto (US 20180276602) and Brady (US 10,310,500), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Hartnell (US 7519451).
As per claim 12, Bryant in view of Rivalto does not disclose but Hartnell discloses wherein determining the product is positioned at a delivery area comprises the sensor detecting the presence of the product in the delivery area for at least three seconds (col. 2:62-col. 3:5, “Software associated with the present invention monitors the delivery area sensor during the time the cup ring is cycled and a predetermined amount of time afterwards. In one embodiment this period of time is three seconds. If a cup is not detected, the software will determine if an additional cup ring with the same size cups exists and attempt to drop a cup from the additional ring”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Hartnell in the teaching of Bryant in view of Rivalto, in order to verify that a beverage product ordered by a vending customer is actually delivered through a delivery area to the customer (Hartnell, abstract).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 20190333036) in view of Rivalto (US 20180276602) and Brady (US 10,310,500), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Smith (US 20190019240).
As per claim 13, Bryant does not disclose but Brady discloses instructing a mobile delivery unit to retrieve the product (fig. 8D, 20:1-10, “(70) In some embodiments, the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i may be programmed or configured to perform one or more missions or tasks in an integrated manner. For example, the control system 260-i may be programmed to instruct the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i to travel to an origin, e.g., the fulfillment center 230, and to begin the performance of a task there, such as by retrieving an item at the origin using the item engagement system 274-i, before proceeding to a destination, e.g., the customer 240, along a selected route (e.g., an optimal route)”, 19:6-19, “(65) The item engagement system 274-i may be any mechanical component, e.g., a robotic arm, for engaging an item or for disengaging the item, as desired. For example, when the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i is tasked with delivering items or materials from an origin to a destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to engage the items or materials at the origin and to deposit the items or materials in a cargo bay or other storage compartment prior to departing. After the autonomous ground vehicle 250-i arrives at the destination, the item engagement system 274-i may be used to retrieve the items or materials within the cargo bay or storage compartment, and deposit the items or materials in a desired location at the destination.”). However, Bryant in view of Brady does not disclose but Smith discloses wherein instructing a mobile delivery unit to retrieve the product is delay by ten seconds after the confirmation signal is communicated to the web server (paragraph 14, “As defined herein, “real-time” can, in some embodiments, be defined with respect to operations carried out as soon as practically possible upon occurrence of a triggering event. A triggering event can include receipt of data necessary to execute a task or to otherwise process information. Because of delays inherent in transmission and/or in computing speeds, the term “real time” encompasses operations that occur in “near” real time or somewhat delayed from a triggering event. In a number of embodiments, “real time” can mean real time less a time delay for processing (e.g., determining) and/or transmitting data. The particular time delay can vary depending on the type and/or amount of the data, the processing speeds of the hardware, the transmission capability of the communication hardware, the transmission distance, etc. However, in many embodiments, the time delay can be less than approximately one second, two seconds, five seconds, or ten seconds.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Smith in the teaching of Bryant in view of Brady, in order to encompass operations that occur in “near” real time or somewhat delayed from a triggering event (please see Smith paragraph 14).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 20190333036) in view of Rivalto (US 20180276602) and Brady (US 10,310,500), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, Ripert (US 20190114583).
As per claim 15, Bryant in view of Rivalto does not disclose but Ripert discloses further comprising instructing the mobile delivery unit to wait at a location near the delivery area until the confirmation signal is communicated (paragraph 33, 36, 52, “In some cases, the shopper management engine 210 assigns orders that have already been prepared (i.e., orders that have an estimated completion time of zero) so that the driver does not have to wait for orders to be prepared. In other cases, it may be more efficient to have the driver wait for one or more orders, so that the driver can deliver more orders in one batch. In the above example, Driver 1 is scheduled to arrive at 11:42 pm. When Driver 1 arrives at 1:42 pm, the shopper management engine 210 assigns the orders presently allocated to Driver 1 (Orders 1, 2, and 4 according to Table 2) to Driver 1, which have already been prepared by the in-store shoppers.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Ripert in the teaching of Bryant in view of Rivalto, in order to deliver more orders in one batch (please see Ripert paragraph 52).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 20190333036) in view of Rivalto (US 20180276602) and Brady (US 10,310,500), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7, in further view of Luo (US 2018118010).
As per claim 9, Bryant does not disclose but Luo discloses wherein delivering the selected product to the consumer comprises: determining the selected product requires temperature control; identifying a pickup area based on a temperature control capability; and delivering the selected product to the pickup area (paragraph 33, “Initially, method 300 receives 302 an order for delivery of one or more items to a vehicle, such as an unattended vehicle. The method identifies 304 any temperature-sensitive items in the received order, including identifying whether the items require a heated environment or a cooled environment. Method 300 also identifies 306 a vehicle to receive the order and determines 308 what kind of storage compartments are available in the vehicle that will be receiving the order. For example, the method may determine the number of compartments, the size of the compartments, and the types of compartments (e.g., heated, cooled, or ambient temperature). Based on the identified temperature-sensitive items and the vehicle's available compartments, method 300 determines 310 whether the vehicle has appropriate compartments to receive the order.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Luo in the teaching of Bryant, in order secure delivery of packages to unattended vehicles (Luo, paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US 20190333036) in view of Rivalto (US 20180276602) and Brady (US 10,310,500), as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7, in further view of Ali (US 20220343773).
As per claim 10, Bryant does not disclose but Ali discloses wherein delivering the selected product to the consumer comprises: navigating to the consumer based on at least one of a navigational instruction from a web server and a map stored in a memory of the mobile delivery unit (paragraph 41-42, 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Ali in the teaching of Bryant, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628