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 .
Priority
Application 19/072,540 was filed on March 6, 2025. It is a continuation of U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 18/354,213, filed July 18, 2023, which claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/401,024, filed on August 25, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 6, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites, “The method of claim 17, the transporter is a vehicle” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical/grammatical error where “wherein” or similar language is omitted. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to read, “The method of claim 17, wherein the transporter is a vehicle” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite, receiving a fulfillment request associated with one or more items;
responsive to receiving the fulfillment request, determining estimated weight data based on the one or more items in the fulfillment request;
obtaining actual weight data associated with the fulfillment request for one or more items, the actual weight data obtained;
verifying that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data;
and performing additional processing based on verifying.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, determining whether or not a order is fulfilled correctly is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to receive an order, estimate weight, verify a weight, and process an order can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1 and 11 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a computer (claims 1 and 11), a processor (claim 1), and a computer readable medium (claim 1). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional element of a scale. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., weighing an item).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 4-7, 15, 17, 18 and 20, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 11. The additional elements in claims 2, 3, 8-10, 12-14, 16, and 19 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 2, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 2, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16 also recite the additional element of a smart shelf (claims 2, 9, and 12), a smart shelf application (claim 8 and 9), a display (claim 9), a database (claims 10 and 16), and a central server computer (claim 13). Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 3, 10, 14, and 19, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 3, 10, 14, and 19 also recite the additional elements of a camera (claims 3, 10, and 14), and the transporter is a vehicle (claim 19). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., capturing images and autonomous vehicles, respectively) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 2, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16 , as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a smart shelf, a smart shelf application, a display, a database, and a central server computer, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 8-10, 12, 13, and 16 are also ineligible.
With respect to claims 3, 10, 14, and 19, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a camera and the transporter is a vehicle, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3, 10, 14, and 19 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122 (b), in which the
patentor application, as the case maybe, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0217108 to Curt et al. (Curt).
As to claim 1, Curt teaches, a scale (“In one embodiment, the system includes a weigh station and a control/display station. One or more weigh stations include a sensitive electronic scale connected to a loading platform; however, the weigh stations can include any suitable type of scale” and “In one embodiment, the scale has good resolution and repeatability; however, the scale can have any suitable features, qualities or configuration …” [0006 and 0015-0017]);
and a computer coupled to the scale, the computer comprising a processor, and a computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the processor, to perform a method comprising (“… One or more weigh stations include a sensitive electronic scale connected to a loading platform; however, the weigh stations can include any suitable type of scale. Preferably, these are networked together with a central controlling station …” and “In one embodiment, the control station receives raw weight data from the weigh station and/or other sensors …” [0006 and 0020-0023])
receiving a fulfillment request associated with one or more items (“… In another embodiment, the station also receives order data from the restaurant cashier system …” and “FIG. 2 illustrates the process of filling an order with a control station in accordance with one embodiment. At block 200, a new order is received from the cash register or other restaurant system …” [0020 and 0036]);
responsive to receiving the fulfillment request, determining estimated weight data based on the one or more items in the fulfillment request (“… At block 240, when the total weight is within the limits expected for the order, the order status is changed to "Complete." …” and “In one embodiment, the control station only starts with the expected weight for each possible item …” [0036 and 0038]);
obtaining actual weight data associated with the fulfillment request for one or more items, the actual weight data obtained using the scale (“In one embodiment, the control station receives raw weight data from the weigh station and/or other sensors …” and “… At block 220, a worker places a bag on the weigh station and the controller registers a weight change. At block 230, the worker proceeds to fill bag with order contents and the controller registers a weight change with each item …” [0020-0021 and 0036]);
verifying that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data (“… At block 240, when the total weight is within the limits expected for the order, the order status is changed to "Complete." …” and “… This information is used to compute the total order weight, and if the measured weight is within a tolerance factor, the order is declared "Complete".…” [0036 and 0038]);
and performing additional processing based on verifying (“… This allows the system to halt the bag loading if an incorrect item is detected …” and “… If the item could not be one of the order items already recorded as placed in the container or no such recorded item could actually have been another order item that has not yet been placed in the container, at block 325, an alert is generated …” [0039 and 0042-0043]).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a method instead of a system. Because Curt teaches a method as well as a system (see at least Curt [claims 11-20]), claim 11 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
As to claim 6, Curt teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Curt further teaches, a plurality of containers with food items on the scale (“… As items are placed in the bag, the weigh station registers the time and change in total weight …” and “… In one embodiment, as items are added to the weigh station, the controller may attempt to identify the specific item that was added …” [0007 and 0039-0041]).
As to claim 7, Curt teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Curt further teaches, wherein the plurality of containers are closed containers (“In one embodiment involving large orders with multiple bags, provisions are made to handle multiple scale loadings in a single customer order …” and “At block 300, an order delivery container (e.g., a bag, sack, box or any other suitable container) is placed at a location monitored by one or more sensors (e.g., weight scale, optical sensor, heat sensor, etc.) …” [0037 and 0042-0045] Examiner notes that per paragraph [0153] of Applicant’s specification, a “bag” is a “closed container”).
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.
Claims 2-5, 8, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0217108 to Curt et al. (Curt), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0304238 to Ambauen et al. (Ambauen).
As to claim 2, Curt teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Curt does not teach, wherein the scale is a part of a smart shelf. However, Ambauen teaches, wherein the scale is a part of a smart shelf (“In an embodiment, an intelligent shelf system comprises a modular technology utilizing intelligent shelves that also solves the problem of matching restaurant orders with customers after orders have been completed …” and “…TABLE 1 states an example list of potential components in an intelligent shelf, in one embodiment … Mechanical weight sensor—strain gauge or switch …” [0124-0133 and 0144-0145]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the scale is a part of a smart shelf, as taught by Ambauen with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ambauen that doing so would make the process of food delivery and pickup at a restaurant a better, faster, more enjoyable experience for individuals that have placed an order [0004].
As to claim 3, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Curt further teaches, further comprising a camera operatively coupled to the computer (“In one embodiment, one or more video cameras or any other suitable visual/light or electromagnetic sensor devices are used in the item identification process at the control station …” [0027]),
wherein the camera is adapted to capture image data of the one or more items on the scale (“… At block 305, an item is placed in the container. At block 310, it is determined whether information about the item gathered from one or more sensors (e.g., the item's weight, temperature, size, shape, coloration and/or identifier or any other suitable information) indicates that the item is an item in the order that has not yet been placed in the container …” [0042]),
and wherein performing additional processing is also based upon the image data (“… If the item could not be one of the order items already recorded as placed in the container or no such recorded item could actually have been another order item that has not yet been placed in the container, at block 325, an alert is generated …” [0042-0043]).
As to claim 4, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Curt further teaches, a container with the one or more items, the container with one or more orders being on the scale (“In one embodiment, the prepared item is associated with an identifier on a wrapper, box or other item container …” and “At block 300, an order delivery container (e.g., a bag, sack, box or any other suitable container) is placed at a location monitored by one or more sensors (e.g., weight scale, optical sensor, heat sensor, etc.) …” [0030 and 0042-0045]).
As to claim 5, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Curt further teaches, wherein the container is a closed container (“In one embodiment, the prepared item is associated with an identifier on a wrapper, box or other item container …” and “At block 300, an order delivery container (e.g., a bag, sack, box or any other suitable container) is placed at a location monitored by one or more sensors (e.g., weight scale, optical sensor, heat sensor, etc.) …” [0030 and 0042-0045] Examiner notes that per paragraph [0153] of Applicant’s specification, a “bag” is a “closed container”).
As to claim 8, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Curt does not teach, wherein the computer readable medium comprises a smart shelf application. However, Ambauen teaches, wherein the computer readable medium comprises a smart shelf application (“Alternatively, a customer may access the order placement application displayed on an order status board that is integrated with an intelligent shelf system, as illustrated in FIG. 6F …” [0172]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the computer readable medium comprises a smart shelf application, as taught by Ambauen with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ambauen that doing so would make the process of food delivery and pickup at a restaurant a better, faster, more enjoyable experience for individuals that have placed an order [0004].
As to claim 12, Curt teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Curt further teaches, wherein determining the actual weight data comprises receiving a message comprising the actual weight data from a scale at a service provider location of a service provider that fulfills the fulfillment request for the one or more items, and identifying the actual weight data in the message (“In one embodiment, the control station receives raw weight data from the weigh station and/or other sensors …” and “… At block 270, raw weight data from the transaction is used to recalculate calibration constants for the weigh station and possibly to update food weight database (e.g., updating weights or weight ranges of items based on actual measured values) …” [0020-0021 and 0036]),
wherein the one or more items comprises two or more items and constitutes a first order (“… As items are placed in the bag, the weigh station registers the time and change in total weight …” and “… Thus, the data accumulated about the order (such as the actual weight of the items or any other suitable data) …” [0007 and 0036]).
Curt does not teach, the scale is in a part of a smart shelf in a scale system, wherein the smart shelf is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers. However, Ambauen teaches, the scale is in a part of a smart shelf in a scale system, wherein the smart shelf is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers (“In an embodiment, an intelligent shelf system comprises a modular technology utilizing intelligent shelves that also solves the problem of matching restaurant orders with customers after orders have been completed …” and “… The order display board might include customer names, order numbers, expected order completion times, order preparation progress, location of completed orders, marketing, loyalty, brand related material, or other material that can be displayed on a digital screen …” [0124-0133 and 0174-0175] Examiner also notes Figs. 4B and 4D showing multiple orders in multiple containers on a shelf).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the scale is in a part of a smart shelf in a scale system, wherein the smart shelf is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers, as taught by Ambauen with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ambauen that doing so would make the process of food delivery and pickup at a restaurant a better, faster, more enjoyable experience for individuals that have placed an order [0004].
As to claim 14, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Curt further teaches, wherein the scale system further comprise a camera adapted to obtain images of the two or more items in the first order (“In one embodiment, one or more video cameras or any other suitable visual/light or electromagnetic sensor devices are used in the item identification process at the control station …” and “FIG. 3 illustrates order fulfillment accuracy checking by checking each item in accordance with one embodiment. At block 300, an order delivery container (e.g., a bag, sack, box or any other suitable container) is placed at a location monitored by one or more sensors (e.g., weight scale, optical sensor, heat sensor, etc.) …” [0027 and 0041-0042]).
As to claim 15, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. Curt does not teach, wherein a second order Ambauen teaches, wherein a second order (“In an embodiment, an intelligent shelf system comprises a modular technology utilizing intelligent shelves that also solves the problem of matching restaurant orders with customers after orders have been completed …” and “… The order display board might include customer names, order numbers, expected order completion times, order preparation progress, location of completed orders, marketing, loyalty, brand related material, or other material that can be displayed on a digital screen …” [0124-0133 and 0174-0175] Examiner also notes Figs. 4B and 4D showing multiple orders in multiple containers on a shelf and that the shelf is a “scale” as it can contain mechanical weight sensors per [0145]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein a second order
While Ambauen teaches and order, Ambauen does not teach that the order has two or more items. However, Curt teaches, an order with two or more items (“… As items are placed in the bag, the weigh station registers the time and change in total weight …” [0007]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the order with two or more items of Curt for the order of Ambauen. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Curt that doing so would provide complete error tracking and feedback as well as provide accountability if a customer returns due to an incorrect order [0004-0005].
Claims 9, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0217108 to Curt et al. (Curt) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0304238 to Ambauen et al. (Ambauen), as applied to claims 8 and 12 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0406853 to Kelly et al. (Kelly).
As to claim 9, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Curt further teaches, further comprising a display (“In one embodiment, the system includes a weigh station and a control/display station …”and “… In another embodiment, the system includes a separate display unit, which displays the order fulfillment status to the worker preparing the order. In still another embodiment, a second display unit is located at a remote location or any other suitable location, for supervisor monitoring or any other suitable purpose” [0006 and 0013]).
Curt in view of Ambauen does not teach, the display allowing a user to indicate to the smart shelf application if a container to be placed on the smart shelf is to be delivered to a user, or is to be picked up by a user. However, Kelly teaches, the display allowing a user to indicate to the smart shelf application if a container to be placed on the smart shelf is to be delivered to a user, or is to be picked up by a user (“… The application may be used to select a location for the user to obtain a food product 1004” and “… The application can generate unique barcodes, for users to place “Quick Orders,” making payment, validating orders in-store and drive-thru, and picking up food from dispenser apparatus … In some examples, the application may include a feature to “send order by me” command …” and “… Referring to FIG. 25A, at step 2500, the system may facilitate user selection of a store or a dispenser to receive an order in the application …” and “… In some examples, illustrated with robot handler 3750, the dispenser may operate as a stocker with storage shelves where the robot handler 3750 may retrieve an order and hand off the order to the rail delivery system …” and “… Third-party delivery 4013 such as Grubhub or Uber Eats may interface with a dispenser pickup, delivery drone drop-off, or manual pickup on behalf of a user or organizer of the application …” [0176 and 0182-0183 and 0234 and 0272 and 0281-0284]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the display allowing a user to indicate to the smart shelf application if a container to be placed on the smart shelf is to be delivered to a user, or is to be picked up by a user, as taught by Kelly with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt in view of Ambauen. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
As to claim 13, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Curt does not teach, wherein the computer is a central server computer that is remotely located with respect to a service provider computer that fulfills the fulfillment request for the one or more items, and the fulfillment request is received from an end user device, and the one or more items are requested by an end user of the end user device. However, Kelly teaches, wherein the computer is a central server computer that is remotely located with respect to a service provider computer that fulfills the fulfillment request for the one or more items, and the fulfillment request is received from an end user device, and the one or more items are requested by an end user of the end user device (“A user of the applicant may build an experience history as they utilize the application for purchasing orders. The overall operational flow may be controlled by software algorithms that operate on servers that may be located in a restaurant or remote from a restaurant …” and “… At Step 1601, a user may be allowed to place an order at a kiosk, or on a mobile device first and then scan a resulting order barcode at the kiosk. At step 1602, the system devices may communicate the order, identification and other data to servers/cloud and receive information back to a mobile device to constitute a barcode …” [0209 and 0222]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the computer is a central server computer that is remotely located with respect to a service provider computer that fulfills the fulfillment request for the one or more items, and the fulfillment request is received from an end user device, and the one or more items are requested by an end user of the end user device, as taught by Kelly with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt in view of Ambauen. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
As to claim 17, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Curt in view of Ambauen does not teach, wherein the computer is programmed to determine that the first order has been picked up by a transporter and notify an end user that the first order has been picked up by the transporter, while the second order is on the scale. However, Kelly teaches, wherein the computer is programmed to determine that the first order has been picked up by a transporter and notify an end user that the first order has been picked up by the transporter, while the second order is on the scale (“The bins may store orders processed remotely and awaiting pick-up or order places onsite at a point-of-sale/drive-thru kiosk …” and “… Other sensors may monitor the presence of food products and trays within the device. In some examples, cameras may be located within the pods to allow for remote viewing of the status within the pod. Other examples of sensors may include weight detecting pads or devices located within the bin that can identify when an item is placed or removed from a bin …” and “… Once the delivery driver or one or more of the customers' orders have been identified at the delivery dispenser 6007, the delivery driver may place the one or more customers' orders into the appropriate bin of the preferred delivery dispenser 6008. Once the order has been locked in a designated bin, one or more of the customers constituting the plurality of customers may be notified in a smart device application through a push notification, text message, email notification, and the like …” [0100 and 0166-0168 and 0360]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the computer is programmed to determine that the first order has been picked up by a transporter and notify an end user that the first order has been picked up by the transporter, while the second order is on the scale, as taught by Kelly with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt in view of Ambauen and in further view of Teller. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
As to claim 18, Curt in view of Ambauen and in further view of Kelly teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Curt does not teach, wherein the transporter operates a transporter vehicle. However, Ambauen teaches, wherein the transporter operates a transporter vehicle (“… The delivery driver, when he/she arrives, scans the bag to confirm pickup (and pickup of the correct order) and scans again at customer address to mark delivery of correct order” [0209-0211]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the transporter operates a transporter vehicle, as taught by Ambauen with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ambauen that doing so would make the process of food delivery and pickup at a restaurant a better, faster, more enjoyable experience for individuals that have placed an order [0004].
As to claim 19, Curt in view of Ambauen and in further view of Kelly teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Curt in view of Ambauen does not teach, the transporter is a vehicle. However, Kelly teaches, the transporter is a vehicle (“… Delivery to and from a centralized dispenser location may be done via a human deliverer, autonomous vehicle, delivery drone, and the like …” [0257-0258]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the transporter is a vehicle, as taught by Kelly with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt in view of Ambauen and in further view of Teller. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
As to claim 20, Curt in view of Ambauen and in further view of Kelly teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Curt in view of Ambauen does not teach, wherein the second order is associated with a user consuming items in the second order at the service provider location. However, Kelly teaches, wherein the second order is associated with a user consuming items in the second order at the service provider location (“… The terminal may display order information to an employee such as, but not limited to, order price, order size, estimated order preparation or fulfillment time, estimated order delivery time, estimated time of user arrival, single or combined order, or distinguishing location of an order such as remote (offsite or preorder), onsite (takeout or dine-in), or delivery order …” [0239]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the second order is associated with a user consuming items in the second order at the service provider location, as taught by Kelly with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt in view of Ambauen and in further view of Teller. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0217108 to Curt et al. (Curt) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0304238 to Ambauen et al. (Ambauen), as applied to claims 2 and 15 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0238346 to Teller (Teller).
As to claim 10, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Curt further teaches, further comprising a camera operatively coupled to the computer (“In one embodiment, one or more video cameras or any other suitable visual/light or electromagnetic sensor devices are used in the item identification process at the control station …” [0027]),
wherein the camera is adapted to capture image data of the one or more items on the scale (“… At block 305, an item is placed in the container. At block 310, it is determined whether information about the item gathered from one or more sensors (e.g., the item's weight, temperature, size, shape, coloration and/or identifier or any other suitable information) indicates that the item is an item in the order that has not yet been placed in the container …” [0042]),
wherein the captured image data is used for future potential conflict resolution (“In one embodiment, sensors (e.g., video sensors with image recognition software) are also used to track item production to ensure accuracy …”and “FIG. 3 illustrates order fulfillment accuracy checking by checking each item in accordance with one embodiment. At block 300, an order delivery container (e.g., a bag, sack, box or any other suitable container) is placed at a location monitored by one or more sensors (e.g., weight scale, optical sensor, heat sensor, etc.) …” and “In one embodiment, by analyzing the most frequent bagging errors, the restaurant can identify steps to prevent or minimize them …” [0029 and 0042-0043 and 0049-0050]).
Curt in view of Ambauen does not teach, and wherein performing additional processing comprises storing the captured image data in a database. However, Teller teaches, and wherein performing additional processing comprises storing the captured image data in a database (“… Once the bar camera is enabled, the images or video pertaining to the particular dispensing event is saved and stored in a database …” and “… The images or video may be used to determine the type of beverage that has been served, by comparing such visual evidence with the library of bottle caps or label images in a database …” [0132 and 0144]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and wherein performing additional processing comprises storing the captured image data in a database, as taught by Teller with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt in view of Ambauen. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Teller that doing so would provide an efficient tracking system without having a negative impact on customers and on establishment aesthetics [0007 and 0061].
As to claim 16, Curt in view of Ambauen teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Curt in view of Ambauen does not teach, wherein further processing comprises storing the images of the two or more items in a database for conflict resolution. However, Teller teaches, wherein further processing comprises storing the images of the two or more items in a database for conflict resolution (“… Once the bar camera is enabled, the images or video pertaining to the particular dispensing event is saved and stored in a database …” and “… The images or video may be used to determine the type of beverage that has been served, by comparing such visual evidence with the library of bottle caps or label images in a database …” [0132 and 0144]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein further processing comprises storing the images of the two or more items in a database for conflict resolution, as taught by Teller with the system and method for processing weight data of Curt in view of Ambauen. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Teller that doing so would provide an efficient tracking system without having a negative impact on customers and on establishment aesthetics [0007 and 0061].
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/patenits/appv/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 11-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated by claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 15, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 ('859 Patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6, 7, 11-15, and 19 are anticipated by claims 1, 2, 6, 15, 18, and 20 of the '859 Patent. The following broader limitations in claims 1, 6, 7, 11-15, and 19 of the current application are anticipated by the narrower limitations in claims 1, 2, 6, 15, 18, and 20 of the '859 Patent. Therefore, claims 1, 6, 7, 11-15, and 19 are anticipated by claims 1, 2, 6, 15, 18, and 20 of the '859 Patent. The table below shows the claims limitations of the current application in detail that are anticipated by the '859 Patent.
Current Application Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 18
A system comprising:
A system comprising:
--
a central server computer; and
a scale; and
a scale system comprising a scale
a computer coupled to the scale, the computer comprising a processor, and
and a computer coupled to the scale, the computer comprising a processor, and
a computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the processor, to perform
a computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the processor, to perform
a method comprising receiving a fulfillment request associated with one or more items;
a method comprising receiving, from the central server computer over a communications network, a fulfillment request associated with one or more items to be delivered from a service provider preparing the one or more items to an end user by a transporter operating a transporter user device
responsive to receiving the fulfillment request, determining estimated weight data based on the one or more items in the fulfillment request;
responsive to receiving the fulfillment request, determining estimated weight data based on the one or more items in the fulfillment request,
obtaining actual weight data associated with the fulfillment request for one or more items, the actual weight data obtained using the scale;
obtaining actual weight data associated with the fulfillment request for one or more items, the actual weight data obtained using the scale,
verifying that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data; and
verifying that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data,
performing additional processing based on verifying.
(Examiner notes that “automatically generating a first notification” in claim 18 of the ‘859 Patent is reads on performing additional processing)
in response to verifying that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data, automatically generating a first notification that the one or more items are completed by the service provider and are ready to deliver to the end user, and transmitting the first notification to the central server computer, wherein the central server computer transmits the first notification to the transporter user device of the transporter that is delivering the one or more items to the end user,
--
determining that a current weight detected by the computer using the scale is reduced by an amount equal to the one or more items, responsive to determining that the current weight detected by the computer using the scale is reduced by the amount equal to the one or more items,
--
automatically generating a second notification indicating that the transporter has retrieved the one or more items, and transmitting the second notification to the central server computer, wherein the central server computer transmits an update message to an end user device of the end user based on the second notification,
--
and stores the actual weight data corresponding to the estimated weight data, wherein the actual weight data is used by the central server computer to prove that an order for the one or more items was complete when the one or more items were obtained by the transporter from the service provider, and delivered to the end user.
Current Application Claim 2
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 15
The system of claim 1,
The method of claim 1,
--
wherein the one or more items comprises two or more items and constitutes the order,
wherein the scale is a part of a smart shelf.
and the scale is in a form of a shelf, which is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers.
Current Application Claim 6
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claims 15 and 9 (in combination)
The system of claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, (claim 15)
--
wherein the one or more items comprises two or more items and constitutes the order, (claim 15)
a plurality of containers
and the scale is in a form of a shelf, which is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers. (claim 15)
with food items
wherein the one or more items are food items. (claim 9)
Current Application Claim 7
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claims 6 and 15 (in combination)
The system of claim 6,
The method of claim 5, (claim 6)
wherein the
wherein the container is a closed container. (claim 6)
the plurality of containers
wherein the one or more items comprises two or more items and constitutes the order, and the scale is in a form of a shelf, which is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers. (claim 15)
Current Application Claim 11
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 1
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computer, a fulfillment request associated with one or more items;
receiving, by a scale system comprising a computer and a scale from a central server computer over a communications network, a fulfillment request associated with one or more items to be delivered from a service provider preparing the one or more items to an end user by a transporter operating a transporter user device;
responsive to receiving the fulfillment request, determining, by the computer, estimated weight data based on the one or more items in the fulfillment request;
responsive to receiving the fulfillment request, determining, by the computer in the scale system, estimated weight data based on the one or more items in the fulfillment request;
obtaining, by the computer, actual weight data associated with the fulfillment request for one or more items;
obtaining, by the computer using the scale, actual weight data associated with the fulfillment request for one or more items, by weighing the one or more items using the scale coupled to the computer to determine the actual weight data;
verifying, by the computer, that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data; and
verifying, by the computer, that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data; and
performing, by the computer, additional processing based on verifying.
(Examiner notes that automatically generating a first notification is performing additional processing)
in response to verifying, that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data, automatically generating, by the computer, a first notification that the one or more items are completed by the service provider and are ready to deliver to the end user, and transmitting the first notification to the central server computer, wherein the central server computer transmits the first notification to the transporter user device of the transporter that is delivering the one or more items to the end user;
--
determining, by the computer, that a current weight detected by the computer using the scale is reduced by an amount equal to the one or more items;
--
responsive to determining that the current weight detected by the computer using the scale is reduced by the amount equal to the one or more items, automatically generating, by the computer, a second notification indicating that the transporter has retrieved the one or more items;
--
and transmitting, by the computer, the second notification to the central server computer, wherein the central server computer transmits an update message to an end user device of the end user based on the second notification, and stores the actual weight data corresponding to the estimated weight data, wherein the actual weight data is used by the central server computer to prove that an order for the one or more items was complete when the one or more items were obtained by the transporter from the service provider, and delivered to the end user.
Current Application Claim 12
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claims 17 and 15 (in combination)
The method of claim 11,
The method of claim 1,
wherein determining the actual weight data comprises receiving a message comprising the actual weight data from a scale at a service provider location of a service provider that fulfills the fulfillment request for the one or more items, and identifying the actual weight data in the message,
wherein the scale system further comprises a display, and wherein the method further comprises: displaying a message on the display indicating that that the actual weight data is less than the estimated weight data and indicating different reasons why the actual weight data is less than the estimated weight data. (claim 17)
wherein the one or more items comprises two or more items and constitutes a first order,
wherein the one or more items comprises two or more items and constitutes the order, (claim 15)
the scale is in a part of a smart shelf in a scale system, wherein the smart shelf is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers.
and the scale is in a form of a shelf, which is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers. (claim 15)
Current Application Claim 13
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 2
The method of claim 12,
The method of claim 1,
wherein the computer is a central server computer that is remotely located with respect to a service provider computer that fulfills the fulfillment request for the one or more items,
wherein the central server computer is remotely located with respect to the service provider that fulfills the fulfillment request for the one or more items,
and the fulfillment request is received from an end user device, and the one or more items are requested by an end user of the end user device.
and the fulfillment request is received from the end user device, and the one or more items are requested by the end user of the end user device.
Current Application Claim 14
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claims 19 and 15 (in combination)
The method of claim 12,
The system of claim 18, (claim 19)
wherein the scale system further comprise a camera adapted to obtain images of the
further comprising a camera operatively coupled to the computer, wherein the camera is adapted to capture image data of the one or more items on the scale. (claim 19)
the two or more items
wherein the one or more items comprises two or more items and constitutes the order, and the scale is in a form of a shelf, which is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers. (claim 15)
Current Application Claim 15
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 15
The method of claim 14,
The method of claim 1,
wherein a second order with two or more items is on the scale at the same time as the first order.
wherein the one or more items comprises two or more items and constitutes the order, and the scale is in a form of a shelf, which is adapted to receive and support multiple orders in multiple containers.
Claims 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 ('859 Patent) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0217108 to Curt et al. (Curt).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 6, 19, and 20 in the ‘859 Patent closely recite the subject matter of claims 3-5 of the current application. The ‘859 Application does not recite the subject matter of, and wherein performing additional processing is also based upon the image data. However, Curt [0042-0043] teaches and wherein performing additional processing is also based upon the image data. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified claims 6, 19, and 20 in the ‘859 Patent by wherein performing additional processing is also based upon the image data. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Curt that doing so would provide complete error tracking and feedback as well as provide accountability if a customer returns due to an incorrect order [0004-0005].
The following table shows a comparison of the claims in the current application and the ‘859 Patent:
Current Application Claim 3
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 19
The system of claim 2,
The system of claim 18,
further comprising a camera operatively coupled to the computer,
further comprising a camera operatively coupled to the computer,
wherein the camera is adapted to capture image data of the one or more items on the scale,
wherein the camera is adapted to capture image data of the one or more items on the scale.
and wherein performing additional processing is also based upon the image data.
Curt [0042-0043]
Current Application Claim 4
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 20
The system of claim 3,
The system of claim 18,
further comprising: a container with the one or more items, the container with one or more orders being on the scale.
further comprising: a container with the one or more items, the container with one or more orders being on the scale.
Current Application Claim 5
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 6
The system of claim 4,
The method of claim 5,
wherein the container is a closed container.
wherein the container is a closed container.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 ('859 Patent) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0238346 to Teller (Teller).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 19 in the ‘859 Patent closely recites the subject matter of claim 10 of the current application. The ‘859 Patent does not recite the subject matter of and wherein performing additional processing comprises storing the captured image data in a database, wherein the captured image data is used for future potential conflict resolution. However, Teller [0132 and 0144] teaches, and wherein performing additional processing comprises storing the captured image data in a database, wherein the captured image data is used for future potential conflict resolution. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified claim 19 in the ‘859 Patent by performing additional processing based upon the image data. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Teller that doing so would provide an efficient tracking system without having a negative impact on customers and on establishment aesthetics [0007 and 0061].
Regarding claim 16 of the current application, the ‘859 Patent does not recite the subject matter of wherein further processing comprises storing the images of the two or more items in a database for conflict resolution. However, Teller [0132 and 0144] teaches, wherein further processing comprises storing the images of the two or more items in a database for conflict resolution. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘859 Patent by performing additional processing based upon the image data. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Teller that doing so would provide an efficient tracking system without having a negative impact on customers and on establishment aesthetics [0007 and 0061].
The following table shows a comparison of the claims in the current application and the ‘859 Patent:
Current Application Claim 10
Teller/U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 19
The system of claim 2,
The system of claim 18,
further comprising a camera operatively coupled to the computer,
further comprising a camera operatively coupled to the computer,
wherein the camera is adapted to capture image data of the one or more items on the scale,
wherein the camera is adapted to capture image data of the one or more items on the scale.
and wherein performing additional processing comprises storing the captured image data in a database, wherein the captured image data is used for future potential conflict resolution.
Teller [0132 and 0144]
Current Application Claim 16
Teller/U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859
The method of claim 15,
See double patenting rejection of claim 15 above.
wherein further processing comprises storing the images of the two or more items in a database for conflict resolution.
Teller [0132 and 0144]
Claims 8, 9, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 ('859 Patent) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0406853 to Kelly (Kelly).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 18 in the ‘859 Patent closely recites the subject matter of claim 8 of the current application. The ‘859 Patent does not recite the subject matter of, wherein the computer readable medium comprises a smart shelf application. However, Kelly [0176, 0182-0183, 0234, 0272, 0281-0284] teaches, wherein the computer readable medium comprises a smart shelf application. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified claim 18 in the ‘859 Patent by wherein the computer readable medium comprises a smart shelf application. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
Claim 17 in the ‘859 Patent closely recites the subject matter of claim 9 of the current application. The ‘859 Patent does not recite the subject matter of, the display allowing a user to indicate to the smart shelf application if a container to be placed on the smart shelf is to be delivered to a user, or is to be picked up by a user. However, Kelly [0176, 0182-0183, 0234, 0272, 0281-0284] teaches, the display allowing a user to indicate to the smart shelf application if a container to be placed on the smart shelf is to be delivered to a user, or is to be picked up by a user. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified claim 18 in the ‘859 Patent by the display allowing a user to indicate to the smart shelf application if a container to be placed on the smart shelf is to be delivered to a user, or is to be picked up by a user. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
Claim 1 in the ‘859 Patent closely recites the subject matter of claim 17 of the current application. The ‘859 Patent does not recite the subject matter of, while the second order is on the scale. However, Kelly [0100, 0166-0168, 0360] teaches, while the second order is on the scale. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified claim 19 in the ‘859 Patent by sending the notification while the second order is on the scale. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
Regarding claim 18 of the current application, the ‘859 Patent does not recite the subject matter of, wherein the transporter operates a transporter vehicle. However, Kelly [0007-0008] teaches, wherein the transporter operates a transporter vehicle. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘859 Patent by wherein the transporter operates a transporter vehicle. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
Regarding claim 20 of the current application, the ‘859 Patent does not recite, wherein the second order is associated with a user consuming items in the second order at the service provider location. However, Kelly [0239] teaches, wherein the second order is associated with a user consuming items in the second order at the service provider location. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified the ‘859 Patent by wherein the second order is associated with a user consuming items in the second order at the service provider location. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kelly that doing so would greatly reduce delivery times and may be a significant improvement to the current logistical difficulties that may accompany food delivery drop-off [0007].
The following table shows a comparison of the claims in the current application and the ‘859 Patent:
Current Application Claim 8
Kelly/U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 18
The system of claim 2,
A system comprising: … and a computer readable medium comprising code, executable by the processor, to perform a method comprising …
wherein the computer readable medium comprises a smart shelf application.
Kelly [0176, 0182-0183, 0234, 0272, 0281-0284]
Current Application Claim 9
Kelly/U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 17
The system of claim 8,
The method of claim 1,
further comprising a display,
wherein the scale system further comprises a display,
the display allowing a user to indicate to the smart shelf application if a container to be placed on the smart shelf is to be delivered to a user, or is to be picked up by a user.
Kelly [0176, 0182-0183, 0234, 0272, 0281-0284]
--
and wherein the method further comprises: displaying a message on the display indicating that that the actual weight data is less than the estimated weight data and indicating different reasons why the actual weight data is less than the estimated weight data.
Current Application Claim 17
Kelly/U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 1
The method of claim 15,
A method comprising:
--
receiving, by a scale system comprising a computer and a scale from a central server computer over a communications network, a fulfillment request associated with one or more items to be delivered from a service provider preparing the one or more items to an end user by a transporter operating a transporter user device;
--
responsive to receiving the fulfillment request, determining, by the computer in the scale system, estimated weight data based on the one or more items in the fulfillment request;
--
obtaining, by the computer using the scale, actual weight data associated with the fulfillment request for one or more items, by weighing the one or more items using the scale coupled to the computer to determine the actual weight data;
--
verifying, by the computer, that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data;
--
and in response to verifying, that the actual weight data corresponds to the estimated weight data, automatically generating, by the computer, a first notification that the one or more items are completed by the service provider and are ready to deliver to the end user, and transmitting the first notification to the central server computer, wherein the central server computer transmits the first notification to the transporter user device of the transporter that is delivering the one or more items to the end user;
--
determining, by the computer, that a current weight detected by the computer using the scale is reduced by an amount equal to the one or more items;
wherein the computer is programmed to determine that the first order has been picked up by a transporter
responsive to determining that the current weight detected by the computer using the scale is reduced by the amount equal to the one or more items, automatically generating, by the computer, a second notification indicating that the transporter has retrieved the one or more items;
and notify an end user that the first order has been picked up by the transporter,
and transmitting, by the computer, the second notification to the central server computer, wherein the central server computer transmits an update message to an end user device of the end user based on the second notification,
--
and stores the actual weight data corresponding to the estimated weight data, wherein the actual weight data is used by the central server computer to prove that an order for the one or more items was complete when the one or more items were obtained by the transporter from the service provider, and delivered to the end user.
while the second order is on the scale.
Kelly [0100, 0166-0168, 0360]
Current Application Claim 18
Kelly/U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859
The method of claim 17,
See double patenting rejection of claim 17 above.
wherein the transporter operates a transporter vehicle.
Kelly [0007-0008]
Current Application Claim 19
Kelly/U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859 claim 12
The method of claim 17,
The method of claim 11,
--
wherein the method further comprises: providing, by the central server computer to one or more transporter user devices of one or more transporters, a communication regarding the fulfillment request,
the transporter is a vehicle.
wherein the transporters are autonomous vehicles and the one or more transporter user devices are communication devices in the autonomous vehicles;
--
receiving, by the central server computer, an acceptance indication from the transporter user device of the transporter of the one or more transporter user devices;
--
and facilitating, by the central server computer, delivery of the one or more items by the transporter from the service provider to the end user.
Current Application Claim 20
Kelly/U.S. Patent No. 12,271,859
The method of claim 17,
See double patenting rejection of claim 17 above.
wherein the second order is associated with a user consuming items in the second order at the service provider location.
Kelly [0239]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0230216 to Buibas et al. (Buibas) teaches, a system that analyzes data from a smart shelf that is monitored by weight sensors and cameras to identify items that are removed from the shelf and the locations of these items on the shelf.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0175099 to Tazawa (Tazawa) teaches, a POS system including: input means for receiving an input of an order; memory means for storing item information containing an individual theoretical weight of each item; calculating means for calculating, based on input information containing item types and item quantities of ordered items and on the item information, a theoretical total weight of the ordered items.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0103881 to Neubarth et al. (Neubarth) teaches a shelf system for monitoring items coupled with support utilities. The system is configured to detect item change caused by customer actions and optimize the camera system and computing resources of a remote server.
U.S. Patent No. 6,115,695 to Kern (Kern) teaches, a method for order verification, including the fifth step of comparing an actual weight of the customer order with the projected total weight to verify the order.
U.S. Patent No. 6,384,348 to Haga et al. (Haga) teaches, a packing error detecting system preferably employed in a fast-food shop system to check whether all of sales items are correctly packed in a package (i.e., bag or the like) in accordance with customer's order without opening the already sealed package.
U.S. Patent No. 5,937,386 to Frantz (Frantz) teaches, an apparatus and method for checking the accuracy of a customer's food order when ordering food to go from a quick-service restaurant. This is done by checking the contents of a bagged order by means of a weight check of the total weight of the bagged order so as to determine the correct order and/or contents thereof prior to the customer leaving the quick service restaurant.
Korean Patent Publication No. KR 20210047660 A to Kim (Kim) teaches, a method and system for controlling a robot, and more particularly, to a method and system for controlling a robot to check whether an order by a user is correctly placed using vision-based recognition and weight recognition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628