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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “605” has been used to designate both “605” and “605a”, “605b”, “605c”, “605d”, “605e”, etc. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Examiner notes that none of the drawings use the reference character “605”. Instead 605a-I is used throughout the drawings. However, the Specification mentions just reference character “605” throughout.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “sending…the client device associated with the customer. Receiving…… with the shopper.”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests amending to “customer;” in order for the claims to be comprised of only one sentence.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 11-18 and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,248,980 (Application 17/846698). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the patented claims. Specifically, the instant claims are anticipated by the patented claims as follows:
Instant Claim 1
12,248,980 Patent Claim 1
1. A method comprising: receiving, by an online system, an order from a client device associated with a customer of the online system, the order including an item to be obtained by a shopper;
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by an online concierge system, an order from a client device associated with a customer of the online concierge system, the order including an item to obtain by a shopper;
obtaining, by an attribute variability engine of the online system, attributes of the item from an item database;
obtaining, by an attribute variability engine of the online concierge system, attributes of the item from an item database;
identifying, by the online system, whether one or more attributes of the item are variable
identifying, by the online concierge system, whether one or more attributes of the item are variable, wherein the one or more attributes of the item comprise one or more of: a shape of the item, a dimension of the item, a quantity of the item, a quality of the item, and a color of the item;
responsive to identifying that the one or more attributes of the item are variable, generating, by a prompt generation engine of the online system, a prompt to capture an image of one physical item corresponding to the item included in the order;
responsive to identifying that the one or more attributes of the item are variable, generating, by a prompt generation engine of the online concierge system, a prompt to capture a plurality of images of the item from a different angle or a different position;
sending, by the online system, the prompt to another client device associated with the shopper of the online system;
sending, by the online concierge system, the prompt to another client device associated with the shopper of the online concierge system;
receiving, at the online system, an image of the one physical item from the client device associated with the shopper; and
receiving, at the online concierge system, a plurality of images of an item from the client device associated with the shopper, wherein each of the plurality of images of the item is captured from one or more of a different angle and a different position and the item is included among an inventory of a warehouse associated with a retailer associated with the online concierge system;
generating, by the online concierge system, a three-dimensional image of the item based at least in part on the plurality of images of the item, the three-dimensional image of the item comprising one or more of: a dimension of the item and a color of the item; and
and sending, by the online system, the image of the one physical item to the client device associated with the customer.
sending, by the online concierge system, the three-dimensional image of the item to the client device associated with the customer, wherein a perspective of the three-dimensional image is modifiable within a display area of the client device.
Additionally, Examiner notes that a similar analysis/comparison may be made between instant Independent Claims 11 and 20 to claims 1, 10, and 17 of the US 12,248,980 Patent.
Further, the following instant dependent claims are anticipated by the US 12,248,980 patented claims as follows:
Instant Claims
12,248,980 Patent Claims
2, 12
1 & 2
3, 13
3
4, 14
1
5, 15
4
6, 16
7
7, 17
5
8, 18
6
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-10, is directed to the process. Additionally, the computer program product, as claimed in claims 11-19, is directed to an apparatus. machine. Finally, the system as claimed in claim 20, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of providing item information to a user. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
Receiving an order from a client associated with a customer, the order including an item to be obtained by a shopper;
Obtaining attributes of the item;
Identifying whether one or more attributes of the item are variable
Responsive to identifying that the one or more attributes of the item are variable, generating a prompt to capture an image of the one physical item corresponding to the item included in the order;
Sending the prompt to another client associated with the shopper;
Receiving an image of the one physical item from the client associated with the shopper; and
Sending the image of the one physical item to the client associated with the shopper.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because receiving an order, obtaining attributes, identifying variable attributes, generating a prompt, sending the prompt, receiving an image, and sending the image of a product is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as an online system, client device, attribute variability engine, item database, prompt generation engine, another client device. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing prompt to receive more item information (e.g., image)) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-10 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: video (claim 2), a camera included in one or more of a shopping cart system, inventory management system, order fulfillment system, checkout system (claim 3), digital representation (claim 4-6), augmented reality environment or virtual reality environment within a display area (claim 6). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 7-10 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-10 are also ineligible.
Independent claims 11 and 20 recite the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. Supplementary to Claim 1, Independent Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and processor. Supplementary to Claim 1, Independent Claim 20 recites a computer system comprising a processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The additional elements in Independent claims 11 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, the dependent claims 12-19 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-9. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-9, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 12-19 are also ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayerle et al. (US 2014/0100997) in view of Barron et al. (US 2012/0185356).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20, Mayerle discloses A method comprising: (See at least paragraph [0008] and [0025]-[0030] disclosing a computer implemented method and system including processor executing software instructions stored in memory)
Obtaining, by an attribute variability engine of the online system, attributes of the item from an item database (See at least paragraph [0035], [0050], [0054], [0095], Fig. 1);
Identifying, by the online system, whether one or more attributes of the item are variable (See at least paragraph [0007], [0027], [0032], [0043] disclosing client can request and select different item attributes such as size shape, quantity and color of the items);
responsive to identifying that the one or more attributes of the item are variable, generating, by a prompt generation engine of the online system, a prompt to capture the item; (See at least Fig. 7 & 8, paragraph [0048]-[0049], [0080]-[0082] disclosing the consumer can select the item along with the specific attributes and then send a request (e.g., prompt) to the retailer in order to purchase the item)
sending, by the online system, the prompt to the to another client device associated with an employee (See at least Fig. 7 & 8, paragraph [0048]-[0049], [0080]-[0082] disclosing the consumer can select the item along with the specific attributes and then send a request (e.g., prompt) to the retailer in order to purchase the item);
receiving, at the online system, an image of the one physical item from the client device associated with the shopper (See at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0023] disclosing capturing images, [0025], [0035], [0037] disclosing employee can work to configure the shopping display, [0043], [0052] disclosing augmented reality shopping backend (e.g., online concierge system), [0076], [0086]-[0087] disclosing pictures of dedicated products and merge with 3D model),
sending, by the online system, the image of the item to a client device associated with a customer (See at least Fig. 1 & 2a-2c and paragraph [0037] & [0043] disclosing a person associated with the retailer can capture image data used to create a three dimensional model representative of the configuration of the shopping display including inventory items for purchase by a consumer, wherein the three dimensional models are sent to a consumer device (e.g., second client device) over a network using an augmented reality shopping backend (e.g., online concierge system)).
While Mayerle discloses an employee associated with a first client device, Mayerle does not expressly disclose that the person associated with the first client device is a shopper, receiving, by an online system, an order from a client device associated with a customer of the online system, the order including an item to obtain by a shopper; and generating, by a prompt generation engine of the online system, a prompt to capture an image of one physical item corresponding to the item included in the order; and sending, by the online system the prompt to another client device associated with the shopper of the online system. However, Barron discloses a shopper (Barron: see at least paragraph [0010] disclosing delivery agent to inspect product remotely using real time video device/communications device at the shopping location in order to help acquire a product on behalf of a customer), receiving, by an online system, an order from a client device associated with a customer of the online system, the order including an item to obtain by a shopper; (See at least paragraph [0010], [0022]); and generating, by a prompt generation engine of the online system, a prompt to capture an image of one physical item corresponding to the item included in the order; and sending, by the online system the prompt to another client device associated with the shopper of the online system (See at least paragraph [0025]-[0026] disclosing a remote consumer requests (e.g., prompt) the delivery agent (e.g., shopper) to capture images of the items requested for purchase in order to inspect and verify the requested items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included sending a prompt and a shopper taking the images with the first client device as taught by Barron in the online shopping system of Mayerle because it would enhance consumer shopping experience by enabling customers to verify items ordered online before completing purchase for delivery. See Barron paragraph [0005]-[0008].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Mayerle and Barron teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 19. Mayerle does not expressly provide for wherein the prompt to capture the image includes instructions to capture multiple images of the item or a video of the one physical item. However, Barron discloses wherein the prompt to capture the image includes instructions to capture multiple images of the item or a video of the one physical item (Barron: see at least paragraph [0009], [0016], [0022], [0024]-[0025] all disclosing a delivery agent (e.g., shopper) captures video of items requested by a remote consumer and sends the captured video including a plurality of images to the consumer device, [0025]-[0026] disclosing a remote consumer requests (e.g., prompt) the delivery agent (e.g., shopper) to capture images of the items requested for purchase in order to inspect and verify the requested items).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included taking video of items by shopper as taught by Barron in the online shopping system of Mayerle because it would enhance consumer shopping experience by enabling customers to verify items ordered online before completing purchase for delivery. See Barron paragraph [0005]-[0008].
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Mayerle and Barron teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Mayerle discloses wherein the image of the one physical item is captured by a camera included in one or more of: a shopping cart system, an inventory management system, an order fulfillment system, and a checkout system (See at least paragraphs [0023] disclosing mobile device including camera, [0025] disclosing physical store location (e.g., warehouse), [0034]-[0035] disclosing retailer associated with a physical location (e.g., warehouse) is connected to an augmented reality shopping backend to enable capture and display of three dimensional images of inventory items, [0040], [0054]-[0055], [0087] disclosing retailer connected to an augmented reality shopping backend to enable capture and display of three dimensional images of inventory items, [0088]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Mayerle and Barron teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Mayerle discloses generating a digital representation of the one physical item based on the captured image(See at least Fig. 1 & 2a-2c and paragraph [0037] & [0043] disclosing a person associated with the retailer can capture image data used to create a three dimensional model representative of the configuration of the shopping display including inventory items for purchase by a consumer, wherein the three dimensional models of the inventory items include sizing (dimension) and color information); and sending the digital representation to the client device associated with the customer (See at least Fig. 1 & 2a-2c and paragraph [0037] & [0043] disclosing a person associated with the retailer can capture image data used to create a three dimensional model representative of the configuration of the shopping display including inventory items for purchase by a consumer, wherein the three dimensional models are sent to a consumer device (e.g., second client device) over a network using an augmented reality shopping backend (e.g., online concierge system)).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Mayerle and Barron teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Additionally, Mayerle discloses wherein generating the digital representation comprises appending a color and a dimension of the item from the captured image of the item to the digital representation (Mayerle: see at least paragraph [0037] & [0043] disclosing a person associated with the retailer can capture image data used to create a three dimensional model representative of the configuration of the shopping display including inventory items for purchase by a consumer, wherein the three dimensional models of the inventory items include sizing (e.g., reference dimension) and color information (e.g., reference color), Fig. 1, 2a-c).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Mayerle and Barron teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 5 and 15. Additionally, Mayerle discloses wherein sending the digital representation to the client device associated with the customer comprises sending the digital representation with instructions to render the digital representation in an augmented reality environment or a virtual reality environment within a display area of the client device associated with the customer. (Mayerle: see at least paragraph [0060]-[0061] disclosing a local client shopping application executing on the client device (e.g., second client device) can optionally include features allowing a consumer user to view all products sold by a particular retailer and this capability can be accessible from either the augmented reality view or from a product screen for a specific product or service).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Mayerle and Barron teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Mayerle discloses sending image of the item (See at least Fig. 1, 2a-2c, paragraph [0037], [0043]). Mayerle does not expressly provide for sending, by the online system, a prompt to the client device associated with the customer to accept or reject one or more portions of the one physical item based at least in part on the image of the one physical item sent to the client device associated with the customer; receiving, by the online system, a response to the prompt from the client device associated with the customer; and sending, by the online system, the response to the prompt to the client device associated with the shopper.
However, Barron discloses sending, by the online system, a prompt to the client device associated with the customer to accept or reject one or more portions of the one physical item based at least in part on the image of the one physical item sent to the client device associated with the customer; receiving, by the online system, a response to the prompt from the client device associated with the customer; and sending, by the online system, the response to the prompt to the client device associated with the shopper (See at least paragraph [0025]-[0026] disclosing the delivery agent sends a plurality of captured images and video to the consumer and additionally requests the consumer to accept or reject the items before completing purchase and receiving a response from the customer to either accept or reject the item, [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a prompt to accept or reject requested items as taught by Barron in the online shopping system of Mayerle because it would enhance consumer shopping experience by enabling customers to verify items ordered online before completing purchase for delivery. See Barron paragraph [0005]-[0008].
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Mayerle and Barron teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 7 and 17. Mayerle does not expressly provide for wherein the response to the prompt corresponds to a rejection of at least a portion of the one physical item and comprises one or more of: a reason for the rejection of the portion of the one physical item, a reference to a corresponding portion of the image of the one physical item, and a request to collect a different physical item of a same type as the one physical item.
However, Barron discloses wherein the response to the prompt corresponds to a rejection of at least a portion of the one physical item and comprises one or more of: a reason for the rejection of the portion of the one physical item, a reference to a corresponding portion of the image of the one physical item, and a request to collect a different physical item of a same type as the one physical item (See at least paragraph [0026] disclosing the customer either approves or rejects acquisition of the inspected product, wherein fi the product is rejected, the customer has the choice of inspecting another product (e.g., collect a different item of same type)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a prompt to accept or reject requested items as taught by Barron in the online shopping system of Mayerle because it would enhance consumer shopping experience by enabling customers to verify items ordered online before completing purchase for delivery. See Barron paragraph [0005]-[0008].
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Mayerle and Barron teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 8 and 18. Additionally, Mayerle discloses receiving, by the online system, an input from the client device associated with the customer to capture images of other physical items of the same type as the one physical item (See at least paragraphs [0007], [0026], [0028], [0037], [0047], [0061], [0083], [0085]).
Regarding Claim 10, Mayerle and Barron teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Mayerle discloses receiving, by the online system, images of the other physical items of the same type as the one physical item from the client device associated with the shopper; and sending the images of the other physical items to the client device associated with the customer (See at least paragraphs [0007], [0026], [0028], [0037], [0047], [0061], [0083], [0085]).
Conclusion
The references cited in the form PTO-892 were not applied under relevant section §103 in the above Office Action, however, they are considered relevant to both claimed and unclaimed features of the instant invention. Applicant is herein advised to review the cited prior art references prior to responding to the instant Office Action in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. For example:
NPL “Pre-Pandemic State of Grocery Purchases Online” (Menon, M., Pre-Pandemic State of Grocery Purchases Online: An Initiatory Review, 2021, Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 15(1), pp. 101-113.) disclosing customer problems with employee shoppers picking substandard produce that may be bruised or mis-shaped/not taking into account consumer preferences.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights