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, 7, 8, 12, 17, and 18 have been amended. Claims 6 and 16 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added as a new claim. Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Judicial Exception Is Not Integrated Into A Practical Application Under Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that amended claims 1 and 12 now recite the operations of “populate the second interface at the merchant terminal with at least one of cost and time from the delivery quotes for at least two of the plurality of delivery network systems” which improves the functioning of a computer by providing the merchant with the ability to make a selection. Examiner disagrees. Populating a merchant terminal with information so that a merchant can make a decision is not an improvement to computer functionality or computer operations. Populating a terminal display or interface with information for a merchant to review in order to make a decision or selection is directed to an abstract idea, specifically collecting, analyzing and presenting information for human decision-making. At best, the alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., observation evaluation, judgment, opinion, or managing personal interactions, behavior, etc.). It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F. 3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Providing a merchant the ability to make a selection based on information populated on their screen at best improves the business process of having items purchased by customers delivered. Technical improvements to computers or computer functionality focuses on enhancing or improving the tools, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claims fall in the latter; providing the merchant with information in order to make a selection. Applicant presents no evidence showing an improvement to computer operations or functionality. The terminals utilized in the applicant’s invention and claims are performing standard computer processing operations: collecting, analyzing/processing, formatting, and outputting data on an interface.
It is also important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Here, the additional elements of: a network link, a computing device (claim 1), a non-transitory medium (claim 1), a merchant computing system, populating a first interface (interpreted as an interface screen) configured for ordering from the merchant at a plurality of remote client devices, and populating a second interface displayed at a merchant terminal (interpreted as an interface screen) for managing orders with information defining the order, and an application programming interface (API). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Populating an interface from receiving data, formatting the data, and presenting the data on a screen, is exactly what terminals, browsers, and displays have always done. Changing the content of what information is being displayed does not change, nor improve, the computer functionality nor the computer operation.
For the reasons set forth above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The Claims Do Not Include Additional Elements That Are Sufficient To Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception Under Step 2B.
Applicant argues that whether the claims recite additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B is moot because the claims are drawn to a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
The claims do 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 amount to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons set forth above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 has 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.
Further, regarding independent claims 1 and 12, Lutnick discloses the amendments and additional citations to the reference have been provided in the prior art rejection.
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 1-5, 7-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 21 recite an apparatus (i.e., machine), and claims 12-15 and 17-20 recite a method (i.e., process). Therefore claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-21 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite the limitations of receiving a plurality of items available for purchase from a merchant; aggregate the plurality of items into a menu for the merchant; populate [a first interface] configured for ordering from the merchant at [a plurality of remote client devices]; receive an order for the merchant for a customer and from [a remote client device of the plurality of remote client device]; in response to receiving the order, request delivery quotes to deliver the order to the customer; receive the delivery quotes to deliver the order to the customer; in response to receiving the order, populate [a second interface displayed at a merchant terminal] for managing orders with information defining the order, requesting confirmation of the order, and requesting selection of [a delivery network] to deliver the order to the customer by the merchant; in response to receiving the delivery quotes, populate [the second interface at the merchant terminal] with at least one of cost and time from the delivery quotes for at least two of the plurality of delivery network systems; receive a confirmation of the order entered through [the second interface at the merchant terminal] and the selection of the delivery network to deliver the order to the customer by the merchant; in response to receiving the confirmation and the selection of the delivery network, notify the customer of the confirmation and an estimate of a time for delivery of the order; in response to receiving the confirmation and the selection of the delivery network, facilitate delivery of the order to the customer using the delivery network; control a point of sale cloud service provider to process payment for the order to the merchant and process payment for delivery of the order using payment information of the customer, wherein the point of sale cloud service provider updates inventory data in response to the confirmation of the order from the second interface and pushes the updated inventory data to [the first interface] via [an application programming interface (API)], thereby removing unavailable items from being displayed to [the plurality of remote client devices]. The limitations are drawn to communicating order information to merchants and customers, and correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions, business relations, managing personal interactions, behavior, or relationships), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving a plurality of items available for purchase from a merchant, receiving an order for the merchant for a customer, receiving delivery quotes from delivery networks to deliver the order to the customer, notifying the customer of an estimated time of delivery, facilitating the delivery of the order, and processing payment for the order and delivery. The claims also correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations detailing the observation and evaluations of items for purchase, order data, delivery data, and making a decision (judgment/opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data (e.g., selecting items, choosing a delivery network, etc.). The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application merely because the claim recites the additional elements of: a network link, a computing device (claim 1), a non-transitory medium (claim 1), a merchant computing system, populating a first interface (interpreted as an interface screen) configured for ordering from the merchant at a plurality of remote client devices, and populating a second interface displayed at a merchant terminal (interpreted as an interface screen) for managing orders with information defining the order, and an application programming interface (API). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 amount to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitation that [the network link] comprises [a wireless link]. The claim recites that the additional element of the network link comprises a wireless link. The additional element amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, in combination, the 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4 and 14 recite the limitation that [the first interface] includes at least one of [a website] and [a mobile application interface]. The claim recites that the additional element of the first interface includes at least a website and a mobile application interface. The additional element amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, in combination, the 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 10 and 20 recite the limitation that notifying the customer of the confirmation and the estimate includes populating [a third interface] with the estimate of the time based on a quote from the delivery network. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional element of a third interface. The additional element amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, in combination, the 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above and additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutnick (2015/0142594) in view of Chenault (US 8,386,323).
Claim 1: Lutnick discloses: An apparatus comprising:
a network link; (Lutnick ¶0031 disclosing communication networks such as cellular links and communication links; ¶0067 disclosing the mobile device may determine the item and send a link such as a webpage link to the item)
a computing device; (Lutnick ¶0005 and ¶0023 disclosing a computing device)
a non-transitory medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions that when executed cause the apparatus to: (Lutnick ¶0005 disclosing non-transitory medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions executed by the apparatus)
receive, through the network link from a merchant computing system, a plurality of items available for purchase from a merchant; (Lutnick ¶0021 disclosing a website providing options for a user to select one or more items from one or more merchants to order and/or have delivered; ¶0026 disclosing providing an interface to one or more users to place orders to one or more merchants; ¶0028 disclosing the system providing information about the items offered by the merchants such as food items offered)
aggregate the plurality of items into a menu for the merchant; (Lutnick ¶0026 disclosing a web server to one or more merchants to establish menus and merchant information; ¶0028 disclosing the system providing information about the items offered by the merchants such as food items offered through a menu of a restaurant)
populate a first interface configured for ordering from the merchant at a plurality of remote client devices; (Lutnick ¶0026 disclosing providing an interface to one or more users to place orders to one or more merchants; system may include a communication interface to communicate information to one or more remote destinations)
receive, through the network link, an order for the merchant for a customer and from a remote client device of the plurality of remote client devices; (Lutnick ¶0021 disclosing orders for one or more merchants being collected; website may provide options for a user to select one or more items from one or more merchants to order; ¶0028 disclosing the user accessing a website and placing an order for one or more merchants for one or more food items)
in response to receiving the order, request, through the network link from a plurality of delivery network systems, delivery quotes to deliver the order to the customer; (Lutnick ¶0033 disclosing determining a delivery agent based on a price quote for the delivery by each of a plurality of delivery agents, or a time quote for each of a plurality of delivery agents; ¶0094 disclosing the service sending delivery opportunities to a set of delivery agents in response to confirming the order, and determining an expected price for the delivery (quote) based on price per mile, flat fee, etc.; ¶0150 disclosing the delivery agents submitting bids to a service and a winner may be determined (e.g. lowest bid, etc.))
receive, through the network link and from the plurality of delivery network systems, the delivery quotes from the plurality of delivery network systems to deliver the order to the customer; (Lutnick ¶0149 disclosing delivery agents submitting bids to make deliveries, the bids may include a flat fee for all deliveries (e.g., 50 dollars to make all deliveries); ¶0150 disclosing the delivery agents submitting bids to a service and a winner may be determined (e.g. lowest bid, etc.); ¶0033 disclosing determining a delivery agent based on a price quote for the delivery by each of a plurality of delivery agents, or a time quote for each of a plurality of delivery agents; ¶0094 disclosing the service determining an expected price for the delivery (quote) based on price per mile, flat fee, etc.)
in response to receiving the order, populate a second interface displayed at a merchant terminal for managing orders with information defining the order, requesting confirmation of the order, and requesting selection of a delivery network to deliver the order to the customer by the merchant; (Lutnick ¶0018 disclosing order information may be transmitted to a merchant; such information may be transmitted to and/or from a communication device associated with the merchant (merchant terminal); ¶0039 disclosing an application interface for a merchant where the merchant is allowed to access incoming order information and modify, confirm, or reject the orders; ¶0040 disclosing receiving an order from a user including identifying order information and ¶0041 disclosing the service may push information about the order to the mobile app of the merchant identifying one or more characteristics of the order; ¶0048 disclosing through a merchant facing application a merchant may confirm an order; ¶0094 disclosing the service determining an expected price for the delivery (quote) based on price per mile, flat fee, etc., and ¶0095-¶0096 disclosing the delivery agent accepting; ¶0128receiving an indication of a destination for a delivery of the items from the cellular telephone and/or any other order related information (e.g., merchant, location of scans, time of delivery); ¶0152 disclosing selecting the best delivery agent/bids; ¶0200 disclosing selecting a delivery agent, the selection may be performed by a merchant; ¶0204 facilitating delivery using the selected delivery agent; such an action may be performed in response to selecting the agent; such an action may be performed by a merchant; ¶0233 merchant's webpage may communicate with a delivery/referral service to determine if a delivery service is available to deliver the web customer's order; merchant web server may transmit order pickup location and delivery location to the delivery/referral service)
in response to receiving the delivery quotes, populate the second interface at the merchant terminal with at least one of cost and time from the delivery quotes for at least two of the plurality of delivery network systems; (Lutnick ¶0171 disclosing a merchant may be notified of a price of delivery; ¶0191 discloses the bid including a cost and time/timeframes; ¶0195 disclosing transmitting a bid from a delivery agent to a merchant; the bid may be received via website (¶0196) and may include information such as costs, time and/or time frames); ¶0194 disclosing receiving a bid from a delivery agent including the cost and delivery time; ¶0200 a selection of a bid by a merchant; selection may be based on a lowest cost or time frame that most closely matches a time and/or time frame associated with an order; see also ¶0230 disclosing the merchant app/web server providing the interface to engage in delivery of the purchase; information such as a cost of delivery is communicated between merchant server and a delivery service; ¶0265 disclosing transmitting delivery price information to the merchant web server)
receive, through the network link, a confirmation of the order entered through the second interface at the merchant terminal and the selection of the delivery network to deliver the order to the customer by the merchant; (Lutnick ¶0048 through a merchant facing application, a merchant may confirm an order, etc.; ¶0211 disclosing displaying information about the delivery job to an agent, the agent may win the bid and be assigned to the job in response to a confirmation; ¶0212 also disclosing the merchant confirming that the pickup time is acceptable for the delivery agent to pick up the items/goods; ¶0200 disclosing selecting a delivery agent, the selection may be performed by a merchant)
in response to receiving the confirmation and the selection of the delivery network, notify, through the network link, the customer of the confirmation and an estimate of a time for delivery of the order by the delivery network; (Lutnick ¶0264 disclosing response to confirming the delivery, a confirmation may be sent to the customer and the delivery may be facilitated from the merchant to the customer using the selected delivery agent; ¶0263 disclosing the delivery times; ¶0253 disclosing confirming same day delivery with the customer; ¶0092 disclosing a customer being notified of an modified delivery time)
in response to receiving the confirmation and the selection of the delivery network, facilitate, through the network link, delivery of the order to the customer using the delivery network; and (Lutnick ¶0264 disclosing response to confirming the delivery, a confirmation may be sent to the customer and the delivery may be facilitated from the merchant to the customer using the selected delivery agent)
Lutnick in view of Chenault discloses:
control a point of sale cloud service provider to process payment for the order to the merchant and process payment for delivery of the order to the delivery network using payment information of the customer, wherein the point of sale cloud service provider updates inventory data in response to the confirmation of the order from the second interface and pushes the updated inventory data to the first interface via an application programming interface (API), thereby removing unavailable items from being displayed to the plurality of remote client devices.
Lutnick discloses a point of sale cloud service provider processing payment for the order to the merchant and payment for delivery of the order to the delivery network using payment information of the customer. Lutnick also discloses a referral service that updates inventory data when the merchant desires to adjust inventory of items offered for sale, and may remove items being offered for sale. Lutnick also discloses the API and cloud service provider: (Lutnick ¶0233 disclosing delivery/referral service transmits cost to merchant webpage and the information is presented to the web customer through checkout interface, merchant may determine delivery charge based on the cost identified by the delivery service; the customer facilitating payment to the merchant (payment may include a fee for delivery) via web; see also ¶0231, ¶0028 an order may include any number of details regarding the order such as allergy information, delivery time, pickup time, directions, delivery agent, and so on; a user may submit payment information for such an order through such a service, ¶0022 payment for one or more orders may be made through an order collector, to a merchant, to a delivery agent, and so on; payments may be distributed among merchants, referral service providers, delivery agents, delivery service providers; ¶0026 disclosing the system may include any number of servers configured to provide any desired processing regarding order information, payment information, delivery information, review information, and so on; system may communicate information to a payment processing service via network interface, etc.; ¶0029 also discloses the payment processing center or service communicating with the delivery agent for delivery services as well; ¶0264 disclosing the customer may agree to the price and finalize the order and payment for the order; ¶0204 disclosing facilitating delivery including making a payment; ¶0030 disclosing payment processing device for processing payments; ¶0029 also discloses the payment processing center or service communicating with the delivery agent for delivery services as well; ¶0030 embodiments may include a payment processing service; payment processing service may be configured to receive information about a credit and/or debit card transaction and facilitate a charge being placed with the credit and/or debit card. The payment processing service may transmit authorization information identifying that the payment has been processed; ¶0036 discloses the merchant and delivery service may receive payment from the customer; the payment may be taken from a payment to the merchant, from a portion due to a provider, as a service fee charged to the customer; ¶0061 disclosing a referral service which may determine item information; the service may add items or remove items when a merchant desires to adjust items offered for sale through a service or starts using a service; ¶0281 disclosing a point of sale system may interact with a referral service (e.g., through an API); ¶0056 disclosing information may be obtained and/or stored by a merchant, a delivery agent, and/or a service in any manner and/or combination (e.g., at a cloud storage service by a service); also ¶0227 disclosing actors may interact with one another through APIs over the internet; ¶0299 discloses an inventory tracking of merchant locations may be adjusted when an item source is assigned for that order; the inventory system may be used as part of and/or in place of a point of sale system; in some embodiments, a point of sale and inventory system are a same thing and/or integrated together). While strongly suggested, Lutnick does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the point of sale cloud service provider updates inventory data in response to the confirmation of the order from the second interface and pushes the updated inventory data to the first interface via an application programming interface (API), thereby removing unavailable items from being displayed to the plurality of remote client devices. Chenault suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Chenault Col. 2, Ln. 56-64 disclosing a merchant facility that uses asynchronous messaging to maintain a model of all current physical inventory possessed by the merchant, and the model representing inventory at a number of distribution centers (“DCs”) or other locations used by the merchant to store inventory; Col. 2, Ln. 63-Col. 3, Ln. 2 disclosing the inventory model representing the expected future changes to physical inventory as adjustments to the physical inventory needed to determine if inventory is available for sale; these can include complete orders for items and purchase orders; Col. 3, Ln. 3-9 disclosing each inventory update for an item to its inventory model, the facility determines whether the update changes the availability status of the item; in cases where it does, the facility delivers an asynchronous message from the inventory system to a web system, which uses such messages to maintain an up-to-date model of item availability; Col. 4, Ln. 19-31 disclosing availability updates received by the web system are produced by an inventory modeling system, also referred to herein as the "GPI system." The inventory modeling system maintains an inventory model reflecting the current inventory of each item held by each DC, as well as anticipated events that will affect such inventory, such as pending customer orders (expected to diminish inventory) and purchase orders scheduled to be delivered to distribution centers in the near future; when an inventory change for an item that reflects a change in availability of the item occurs in the inventory model, the inventory modeling system sends an availability update to the web system advising the web system of the availability change of the item; see also Col. 4, Ln. 43-51 showing the merchant confirmed the orders; see also Col. 21, Ln. 45-67 indicating the updating of the inventory being through the first interface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lutnick to include that the point of sale cloud service provider updates inventory data in response to the confirmation of the order from the second interface and pushes the updated inventory data to the first interface via an application programming interface (API), thereby removing unavailable items from being displayed to the plurality of remote client devices as taught by Chenault. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lutnick in order to generate item availability information for web merchants, and a more effective approach to generating item availability information for web merchants (see col. 2, Ln. 37-39 of Chenault).
Claim 12 is directed to a method. Claim 12 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards an apparatus. Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 2: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the network link comprises a wireless link. (Lutnick ¶0031 disclosing communication networks such as cellular links and communication links; ¶0067 disclosing the mobile device may determine the item and send a link such as a webpage link to the item)
Claim 3: The apparatus of claim 1, in which the plurality of items includes food items and the merchant includes a restaurant. (Lutnick ¶0018 disclosing a merchant may be a restaurant; ¶0028 disclosing the user accessing a website and placing an order for one or more merchants for one or more food items)
Claim 13 is directed to a method. Claim 13 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards an apparatus. Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Claim 4: The apparatus of claim 1, in which the first interface includes at least one of a website and a mobile application interface. (Lutnick ¶0021 and ¶0027 disclosing a website interface; ¶0039 and ¶0040 disclosing a mobile app interface)
Claim 14 is directed to a method. Claim 14 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards an apparatus. Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Claim 5: The apparatus of claim 1, in which the order identifies a location of the delivery, the payment information and items to be delivered. (Lutnick ¶0028 disclosing an order including the purchase of the item and information about the items, and payment information for the user as well as pick-up information and directions; ¶0040 disclosing the order may identify a location for delivery, a time for pickup, a time for delivery)
Claim 15 is directed to a method. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards an apparatus. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Claim 7: The apparatus of claim 1, in which the second interface is populated with the cost and time for given delivery quotes after the second interface is populated with the information defining the order. (Lutnick ¶0191 disclosing delivery agent bids including a cost for making the delivery and a time or time frame for making the delivery; ¶0194 disclosing receiving a bid from a delivery agent including the cost and delivery time; ¶0195 disclosing transmitting the bid to a merchant; ¶0261 disclosing a timing for delivery; a delivery/referral service may communicate available times to a merchant interface, see also ¶0264; ¶0039 disclosing an application interface for a merchant where the merchant is allowed to access incoming order information and modify, confirm, or reject the orders; ¶0040 disclosing receiving an order from a user including identifying order information and ¶0041 disclosing the service may push information about the order to the mobile app of the merchant identifying one or more characteristics of the order)
Claim 17 is directed to a method. Claim 17 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 7, which is directed towards an apparatus. Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Claim 8: The apparatus of claim 1, in which the second interface is populated with the cost and time for given delivery quotes while the second interface is populated with the information defining the order. (Lutnick ¶0191 disclosing delivery agent bids including a cost for making the delivery and a time or time frame for making the delivery; ¶0194 disclosing receiving a bid from a delivery agent including the cost and delivery time; ¶0195 disclosing transmitting the bid to a merchant; bid may include time for completion of the delivery)
Claim 18 is directed to a method. Claim 18 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 8, which is directed towards an apparatus. Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 8.
Claim 9: The apparatus of claim 1, in which the confirmation of the order and the selection of the delivery network are received together. (Lutnick ¶0264 disclosing information identifying finalization of the order being sent to the delivery service and delivery being confirmed with the delivery agent)
Claim 19 is directed to a method. Claim 19 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 9, which is directed towards an apparatus. Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Claim 10: The apparatus of claim 1, in which notifying the customer of the confirmation and the estimate includes populating a third interface with the estimate of the time based on a quote from the delivery network. (Lutnick ¶0264 disclosing response to confirming the delivery, a confirmation may be sent to the customer and the delivery may be facilitated from the merchant to the customer using the selected delivery agent; ¶0263 disclosing the delivery times, i.e., 1 hour, half hour, 2 hour, 5 hour, 10 hour, 12 hour 24, hour, etc.; ¶0253 disclosing confirming same day delivery with the customer and in certain instances confirmation may happening real time through an interface with a third party dispatching software that can track all orders and agents; ¶0253 disclosing same day delivery may be confirmed with a customer…through an interface; information may be presented to a customer about pricing)
Claim 20 is directed to a method. Claim 20 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 10, which is directed towards an apparatus. Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 10.
Claim 11: The apparatus of claim 1, in which facilitating delivery includes transmitting a request to deliver the order to the delivery network systems. (Lutnick ¶0094 disclosing the service sending delivery request to a delivery agent; ¶0200 disclosing selecting a delivery agent, the selection may be performed by a merchant; ¶0204 also disclosing facilitating delivery using the selected delivery agent; such facilitating may include transmitting a request to perform the delivery; a delivery service provider pay receive such information and facilitate delivery, for example by performing the delivery)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lutnick (2015/0142594) in view of Chenault (US 8,386,323) further in view of Dorpfeld (2015/0213403).
Claim 21: The apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the second interface displayed at the merchant terminal includes a first object for selecting a first one of the at least two of the plurality of delivery network systems, and a second object for selecting a second one of the at least two of the plurality of delivery network systems.
Lutnick discloses the merchant (via their merchant terminal which includes the merchant interface) selecting the at least one of the plurality of delivery networks systems (including the ability to select more than one delivery network system: (Lutnick ¶0039 disclosing an application interface for a merchant where the merchant is allowed to access incoming order information; ¶0048 disclosing through a merchant facing application; ¶0112 disclosing responsibility for goods may include any number of delivery agents, service providers, and so on; delivery may involve multiple delivery agents in a relay; ¶0152 disclosing selecting the best delivery agent/bids; ¶0200 disclosing selecting a delivery agent, the selection may be performed by a merchant; ¶0204 facilitating delivery using the selected delivery agent; such an action may be performed in response to selecting the agent; such an action may be performed by a merchant; ¶0233 merchant's webpage may communicate with a delivery/referral service to determine if a delivery service is available to deliver the web customer's order; merchant web server may transmit order pickup location and delivery location to the delivery/referral service; ¶0161 disclosing last mile delivery and ¶0168 disclosing the last mile provider may be selected so that the 1.sup.st place winner receives a percentage of deliveries, the 2.sup.nd place winner receives a second percentage of deliveries and the 3.sup.rd place winner receives a third percentage of deliveries). Lutnick does not appear to disclose that the second interface displayed at the merchant terminal includes a first object for selecting a first one of the at least two of the plurality of delivery network systems, and a second object for selecting a second one of the at least two of the plurality of delivery network systems. Dorpfeld suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Dorpfeld ¶0008 disclosing a computer with user interface; ¶0010 disclosing the vendor of the item to be delivered selected courier as in the Figure; the Figure showing the courier options and icons for UPS, FedEx, or US Postal Service; thus, the courier may select either object for either of the three delivery courier options). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lutnick in view of Chenault to include the second interface displayed at the merchant terminal includes a first object for selecting a first one of the at least two of the plurality of delivery network systems, and a second object for selecting a second one of the at least two of the plurality of delivery network systems as taught by Dorpfeld 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; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights