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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: Claims 1, 12, and 19 recite “automatically providing content associated with the service of the service provider to the first computing device when the distance between the current location of the first computing device and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold”. While, Paragraph [0023] of the Specification discloses “the service provider is notified of the arrival of the one or more customer entities at the location of the service provider when the distance between the current geolocation and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold”, nothing in the specification discloses “automatically providing content associated with the service of the service provider to the first computing device when the distance between the current location of the first computing device and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold” (emphasis added). Therefore, the application is given the priority date of the filing date July 1, 2025.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 12-18 are directed to system (i.e., a machine), and claims 19-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1 and 19 recite: transmitting, for a first entity, a first notification of a service to a service provider; receiving a current location of the first computing entity in response to transmitting a first current location request to the first entity; tracking the current location of the first entity to determine a distance between the current location of the first entity and a location of the service provider; and providing content associated with the service of the service provider to the first entity when the distance between the current location of the first entity and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold.
Independent claim 12 recites: executing service management; performing operations comprising: transmitting, for a first entity, a first notification of a service to a service provider; receiving a current location of the first computing entity in response to transmitting a first current location request to the first entity; tracking the current location of the first entity to determine a distance between the current location of the first entity and a location of the service provider; and providing content associated with the service of the service provider to the first entity when the distance between the current location of the first entity and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold.
The claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 12 and 19 as a whole merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) a first (entity) computing device (claims 1, 12, and 19), (ii) automatically providing data (claims 1, 12, and 19); (iii) one or more computer readable media storing instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (claim 12); and (iv) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations (claim 19).
The above additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Fig. 2 of the Specification), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), 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 listed above, 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/ordered combination (See Fig. 2 of the Specification), nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 19 are ineligible.
Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13, 17 and 20 recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1, 12, and 19 respectively, these judicial exceptions, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13, 17 and 20 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claims 3 and 14 recite wherein continuously requesting the current location of the first entity is buy the servicer provide or the first entity – which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claims 3 and 14 also recite the additional element of the continuously requesting the current location of the first computing device is triggered manually by the service provider or first computing device, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 67 of the PG Publication the ETA mode being triggered manually) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, this additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of the continuously requesting the current location of the first computing device is triggered manually by the service provider or first computing device 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/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3 and 14 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claims 4 and 15 recite wherein the continuously requesting the current location of the first entity is in response to determining the first entity is at a predetermined distance away from the location of the service provider or a predetermined time is left before a service reservation time – which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claims include the additional element of wherein the continuously requesting the current location of the first computing device is triggered automatically, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 21 of the PG Publication disclosing an interface for pulling of geolocation data or allowing the server to access the interface and to pull the data) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, this additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of triggered automatically 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/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 4 and 15 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 5 also recites the additional element of the continuously requesting the current location of the first computing device comprises polling of the first computing device, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 21 of the PG Publication disclosing an interface for pulling of geolocation data or allowing the server to access the interface and to pull the data) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, this additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of continuously requesting the current location of the first computing device comprises polling of the first computing device 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/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 5 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claims 8 and 16 recite performing a data exchange between the first entity and the service provider – which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claims 8 and 16 also recites the additional element of coupling the first computing device to a wireless local area network of the service provider; and performing a data exchange between the first computing device and the service provider, which is recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, this additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), 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 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/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 8 and 16 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claims 10 and 18 recite the limitations of transmitting, for a second entity, a second notification of the service to a service provider; transmitting a second current location request to the second entity; receiving a current location of the second entity; determining an estimated time of arrival of the second entity based on the current location of the second entity; providing the estimated time of arrival of the second entity to the service provider; and providing the first entity with the estimated time of arrival of the first or second entity at the location of the service provider – which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea in claims 1 and 12 respectively.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claims 10 and 18 also recite the additional element of a second (entity) computing device, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 64 and 67 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing customer devices) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, this additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a second (entity) computing device 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/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 10 and 18 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 11 recites the limitations of determining an estimated time of arrival of a plurality of additional entities based on a current location of each of the plurality of entities, respectively – which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 11 also recites the additional element of a plurality of additional (entities) computing devices, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 64 and 67 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing customer devices) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, this additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a plurality of additional (entities) computing devices 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/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is ineligible.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 9, 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0197670 to Poon (hereinafter “Poon”) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0165391 to Turner et al. (hereinafter “Turner”).
In regard to claims 1 and 19, Poon discloses transmitting, for a first computing device, a first notification of a service to a service provider (Paras. 20 and 22) (….the online restaurant (i.e., to a service provider) can be implemented to allow reservation of a table for use at a first reservation time by the first customer using a first mobile equipment. (i.e., transmitting, for a first computing device, a first notification of a service).)
Poon discloses receiving a current location of the first computing device in response to transmitting a first current location request to the first computing device (Paras. 13 and 28) (…the reservation system may prompt the first mobile equipment of the first customer for the current location of the first customer (i.e., transmitting a first current location request to the first computing device)…and calculating, based on the prompted location (i.e., receiving the current location), distance between the current location of the first customer and the location of the restaurant).
Poon discloses tracking the current location of the first computing device to determine a distance between the current location of the first computing device and a location of the service provider (Paras. 13 and 28) ( the reservation system may prompt the first mobile equipment of the first customer for the current location of the first customer using GPS technologies (i.e., tracking the current location of the first computing device)…calculating, based on the prompted location, distance between the current location of the first customer and the location of the restaurant (i.e., determine a distance between the current location of the first computing device and a location of the service provider).)
Poon does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Turner teaches automatically providing content associated with the service of the service provider to the first computing device when the distance between the current location of the first computing device and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold (Para. 25) (…one or more of the triggers (e.g., depicted in 160 of FIG. 1) may be correlated with the data representing the event data to indicate an occurrence of one or more events…correlation may include calculating a distance of device 110 from lodging 180 to determine if the distance is within a threshold of an allowable distance from the lodging…if the threshold is 15 meters and the calculate distance is less than or equal to 15 meters (i.e., when the distance between the current location of the first computing device and the location of the service provider), and the temporal period is the during-stay period, then the correlation that may be indicated is that the traveler 101 (e.g., via location of device 110) is about to check-in or has already checked-in to the lodging associated with a reservation booked by the traveler 101. A context specific message may be communicated to device 110 (i.e., automatically providing content … to the first computing device) may include contextually relevant information, such as a check-in procedure, an access code (e.g., for a door lock) or other form of access credentials, such as WiFi access credentials (i.e., associated with the service of the service provider).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the content specific message of Turner to the customer of Poon in order to provide user satisfaction for the customer/ease of checkin for their reservation.
In regard to claim 12, Poon discloses one or more computer readable media storing instructions for executing service management; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising (Para. 19; Fig. 1) (The apparatus 120 comprises a computing processing unit configured to process memory units stored to execute instructions by the processing unit).
Poon in view of Turner teaches the remaining limitations of claim 12, as discussed above in regard to claims 1 and 19.
In regard to claims 9 and 17, Poon discloses wherein the service comprises a service reservation, and wherein the method further comprises adjusting the service reservation based on information received from the first computing device, the information including at least one of … current geolocation (Pars. 35-36) (At a time when the first reservation time is fast approaching, the inventive system may….prompt the first mobile equipment of the first customer for the current location of the first customer (i.e., based on information received from the first computing device, the information including at least one of … current geolocation)…. calculating, based on the prompted location, distance between the current location of the first customer and the location of the restaurant; estimating, in a range, time for the first customer to arrive from the current location to the restaurant… If the estimated time to arrive at restaurant is much later than the reserved time, then the first customer is deemed to be effectively a ‘cancelled customer.’ The system then can optionally send a notification to the first customer, if the reservation by the first customer has been forecasted to be effectively cancelled, wherein the notification confirms the cancellation of the reservation made by the first customer (i.e., wherein the service comprises a service reservation, and wherein the method further comprises adjusting the service reservation).
Claims 2, 4-7, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poon in view of Turner, as applied to claims 1, 12, and 19, respectively, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0155088 to Pylappan et al. (hereinafter “Pylappan”).
In regard to claims 2, 13, and 20, Poon in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Plyappan teaches wherein tracking the current location of the first computing device comprises continuously requesting the current location of the first computing device (Paras. 23, 26 and 27) (Additionally, or alternatively, user device 105 determines its location periodically…location updates…are shared in intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the periodic and interval based updating of Plyappan to the system of Poon in view of Turner in alert an associate at the provider that the user is approaching (See Para. 9 of Plyappan).
In regard to claims 4 and 15, Poon in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Plyappan teaches wherein the continuously requesting the current location of the first computing device is triggered automatically in response to determining the first computing device is at a predetermined distance away from the location of the service provider (Paras. 12, 22-23 and 28) (…local pickup shopping platform 110 may transmit latitude and longitude values for the pickup location and a distance to be used as radius from the latitude and longitude values as a first threshold distance from the pickup location (i.e., a predetermined distance away from the location of the service provider). …the first threshold distance indicates a boundary outside of which user device 105 is to share its location infrequently and inside of which user device 105 is to share its location more frequently (i.e., wherein the continuously requesting the current location of the first computing device is triggered automatically)…. When the location is inside of the first threshold distance, user device 105 transmits its location to local pickup shopping platform 110 at the more frequent interval (i.e., response to determining the first computing device is at a predetermined distance away from the location of the service provider).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the more frequent location transmission within a threshold distance of the store to the system of Poon in view of Turner in order conserve user device power and processing resources while providing the authorized user more privacy than with persistent location tracking (See Para. 9 of Plyappan).
In regard to claim 5, Poon in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Plyappan teaches wherein the continuously requesting the current location of the first computing device comprises polling of the first computing device (Para. 25) (For example, local pickup device(s) 160 may request a location update of user device(s) 105 with orders ready for pickup. In one embodiment, local pickup device(s) 160 request order updates periodically (e.g., every 5 seconds)…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the locations at the intervals of Plyappan to the system of Poon in view of Turner in order conserve user device power and processing resources while providing the authorized user more privacy than with persistent location tracking (See Para. 9 of Plyappan).
In regard to claim 6, Poon in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Plyappan teaches wherein the current location request is transmitted to the first computing device at predetermined time intervals (Para. 23) (…infrequent location updates are shared in intervals of one or more minutes (e.g., 5 minutes) …frequent location updates are shared in intervals of one or more seconds (e.g., every second)….)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the locations at the intervals of Plyappan to the system of Poon in view of Turner in order conserve user device power and processing resources while providing the authorized user more privacy than with persistent location tracking (See Para. 9 of Plyappan).
In regard to claim 7, Poon in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Plyappan teaches wherein the service provider is notified of the arrival of the first computing device at the location of the service provider when the distance between the current location of the first computing device and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold (Para. 38 and Fig. 3) (In one embodiment, local pickup device 160 may use the third threshold distance as a radius from pickup location 305 to determine boundary 320. If local pickup device 160 determines user device 105 is within boundary 320, local pickup device 160 generates an alert to notify a local pickup associate that the corresponding order should be prepared for pickup. Examiner notes the boundary inside 320, as shown in Fig. 3, is the pickup location (i.e., wherein the service provider is notified of the arrival of the first computing device at the location of the service provider when the distance between the current location of the first computing device and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the notification to the associate of Plyappan in the system Poon in view of Turner in order to provide a more efficient system for the associate to prepare the order for the pickup.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poon in view of Turner, and further in view of Playppan as applied to claims 2 and 132 respectively, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0285855 to Dupray et al. (hereinafter “Dupray”).
In regard to claims 3 and 14, Poon in view of Turner and further in view of Playppan does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Dupray teaches wherein the continuously requesting the current location of the first computing devices is triggered manually by the service provider or the first computing device (Para. 563) (….provide the MS user with the ability to explicitly request to be substantially continuously tracked, wherein the MS tracked locations are stored for access by those having permission…. note that the tracking application may also allow the MS user to deactivate such MS tracking functionality. In one embodiment, an MS user may activate such tracking for his/her MS 140 during working hours and deactivate such tracking during non-working hours… the MS 140 and/or the tracking application may activate and deactivate such tracking by dialing a predetermined number (e.g., by manually or speed dialing the number) for switching between activation of a process that periodically requests a wireless location of the MS 140 from, e.g., the location gateway 142.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include manual activation of tracking by the user of Dupray to the system of Poon in view of Turner and further in view of Playppan in order to assure privacy of the user (See Para. 563 of Dupray “this location capability and method of obtaining location information about an MS user while assuring privacy at other times may be useful”).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poon in view of Turner, as applied to claims 1 and 12, and further in view U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0174244 to Guibene (hereinafter “Guibene”).
In regard to claims 8 and 16, Poon in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Guibene teaches coupling the first computing device to a wireless local area network of the service provider; and performing a data exchange between the first computing device and the service provider (Paras. 30 and 36) (The guest 408 may check-in by entering the hotel (i.e., service provider) lobby and accessing the hotel Wi-Fi or other such network 412 via the App 414 on the guest's smart device 410, such as the guest's smartphone (i.e., coupling the first computing device to a wireless local area network of the service provider)…After connecting to the hotel Wi-Fi, for example, the guest 408 sends a request to check in to the HMS 402 via the App 412, which is received by the HMS 402 (i.e., performing a data exchange between the first computing device and the service provider).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the checking in features via wi-fi of Guibene with the system over Poon in view of Turner, for a more efficient checking in process.
Claims 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poon in view of Turner, as applied to claims 1 and 12, respectively, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0015993 to Dingler et al. (hereinafter “Dingler”).
In regard to claims 10 and 18, Poon discloses transmitting, for a second computing device, a second notification of the service to a service provider (Paras. 20 and 22) (….the online restaurant (i.e., to a service provider) can be implemented to allow reservation of a table for use at a first reservation time by the first customer using a first mobile equipment. (i.e., a second notification of the service…for a second computing device).)
Poon discloses transmitting a second current location request to the second computing device (Para. 13) (…the reservation system may prompt (i.e., transmitting a request) the first mobile equipment of the first customer for the current location (i.e., transmitting a second current location request to the second computing device) of the first customer using GPS technologies and satellite communications)
Poon discloses receiving a current location of the second computing device (Paras. 13 and 28) (…the reservation system may prompt the first mobile equipment of the first customer for the current location of the first customer…and calculating, based on the prompted location (i.e., receiving the current location of the second computing device), distance between the current location of the first customer and the location of the restaurant).
Poon discloses determining an estimated time of arrival of the second computing device at the location of the service provider based on the current location of the second computing device (Paras. 12 and 13) (Further, the system may estimate, in a range, time for the first customer to arrive from the current location to the restaurant.)
Poon in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Dingler teaches providing the estimated time of arrival of the second computing device to the service provider (Para. 27) (Once the location….of the mobile device 30 is known, the reservation system 50 can provide an anticipated arrival time of the patron (i.e., providing the estimated time of arrival of the second computing device) to the service establishment 70, e.g., restaurant (i.e., to the service provider).)
Poon in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Dingler teaches providing the first computing device with the estimated time of arrival of the first or second computing device at the location of the service provider (Para. 71) (…the reservation system can be based on a subscriber defined threshold, and can notify other users of a new estimated time of arrival (ETA). The reservation system would calculate the new ETA and then calculate the difference from the previous ETA. If the ETA is greater than a predefined value a page is sent out to the owner of the reservation and the patron. This will also apply to groups of attendee's should the owner of the reservation be part of a group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the providing an anticipated arrival time (at multiple timestamps) and arrival of the patron in Dingler to the restaurant reservation system of Poon in view of Turner in order help a restaurant rearrange their reservation list to maximize seating capacity and hence revenue (See Para. 13 of Dingler) and allow group attendees to be up to date on group members’ arrival times.
In regard to claim 11, Poon in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Dingler teaches determining an estimated time of arrival for each of a plurality of additional computing devices based on a current location of each of the plurality of additional computing devices, respectively (Paras. 66, 68-70) (Table 2 shows the time to location of several users, John, Matt, Jim and Paul (i.e., determining an estimated time of arrival for each of a plurality of additional computing device)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the providing an anticipated arrival time (at multiple timestamps) and arrival of the patrons in Dingler to the restaurant reservation system of Poon in view of Turner in order help a restaurant rearrange their reservation list to maximize seating capacity and hence revenue (See Para. 13 of Dingler).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,338 (hereinafter “338 Patent”) in view of Poon, and further in view of Turner.
In regard to claims 1, 12, and 19, claims 1, 14 and 18, respectively, of the ‘338 Patent disclose the following limitations of the independent claims 1, 12, and 19 of the current application:
Claim 1 Current Application
Claim 1 '338 Patent
A computer-implemented method for managing services, the method comprising:
A computer-implemented method for managing services, comprising:
transmitting, for a first computing device, a first notification of a service to a service provider
transmitting, for a first computing device, a first notification of a service to a service provider;
receiving a current location of the first computing device in response to transmitting a first current location request to the first computing device
receiving a current location of the first computing device; transmitting a first current location request to the first computing device;
tracking the current location of the first computing device to determine a distance between the current location of the first computing device and a location of the service provider
determine a distance between the current location of the first computing device and a location of the service provider;
automatically providing content associated with the service of the service provider to the first computing device when the distance between the current location of the first computing device and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold
Claim 12 Current Application
Claim 14 '338 Patent
A system for executing service management, comprising:
A system for executing service management, comprising:
one or more computer readable media storing instructions for executing service management;
one or more computer readable media storing instructions for executing service management; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
transmitting, for a first computing device, a first notification of a service to a service provider;
transmitting, for a first computing device, a first notification of a service to a service provider;
receiving a current location of the first computing device in response to transmitting a first current location request to the first computing device;
receiving a current location of the first computing device; transmitting a first current location request to the first computing device;
tracking the current location of the first computing device to determine a distance between the current location of the first computing device and a location of the service provider;
determine a distance between the current location of the first computing device and a location of the service provider;
automatically providing content associated with the service of the service provider to the first computing device when the distance between the current location of the first computing device and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold.
Claim 19 Current Application
Claim 18 '338 Patent
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for executing service management, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for executing service management, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
transmitting, for a computing device, a first notification of a service to a service provider;
transmitting, for a first computing device, a first notification of a service to a service provider;
receiving a current location of the computing device in response to transmitting a first current location request to the computing device;
receiving a current location of the first computing device; transmitting a first current location request to the first computing device;
tracking the current location of the computing device to determine a distance between the current location of the computing device and a location of the service provider;
determine a distance between the current location of the first computing device and a location of the service provider;
automatically providing content associated with the service of the service provider to the computing device when the distance between the current location of the computing device and the location of the service provider is less than a predetermined threshold.
The above bolded limitations in the independent claims are not taught or disclosed by the independent claims of the ‘338 Patent. However, Poon in view of Turner teaches the limitations as discussed above in the 103 rejections, with the same obviousness rationale.
In regard to claim 2 of the Current Application, Claim 2 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 3 of the Current Application, Claim 3 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 4 of the Current Application, Claim 4 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 5 of the Current Application, Claim 6 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 6 of the Current Application, Claim 5 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 7 of the Current Application, Claim 7 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 8 of the Current Application, Claim 8 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 9 of the Current Application, Claim 9 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 10 of the Current Application, Claim 10 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 11 of the Current Application, Claim 11 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 13 of the Current Application, Claim 2 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations, the only difference being the statutory class. It would have been obvious to modify the method claim 2 to be performed by a system.
In regard to claim 14 of the Current Application, Claim 3 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations, the only difference being the statutory class. It would have been obvious to modify the method claim 3 to be performed by a system.
In regard to claim 15 of the Current Application, Claim 4 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations, the only difference being the statutory class. It would have been obvious to modify the method claim 4 to be performed by a system.
In regard to claim 16 of the Current Application, Claim 15 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 17 of the Current Application, Claim 16 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 18 of the Current Application, Claim 17 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations.
In regard to claim 20 of the Current Application, Claim 2 of the ‘338 Patent discloses the limitations, the only difference being the statutory class. It would have been obvious to modify the method claim 2 to be performed by one or more processors.
Prior Art
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0379390 to Scarborough (hereinafter “Scarborough”). Scarborough discloses that locations of users (e.g., ticket holders or users interested in an event) are tracked (e.g., by tracking a user device or determining whether the user has redeemed other related tickets, such as a parking voucher), and it is estimated whether and/or when the user could arrive at the event. If it is unlikely that a ticket holder will be able to arrive at the event, an electronic offer can be presented to the ticket holder to surrender the ticket (which may result in a partial or full compensation). If the ticket is surrendered, the ticket can be electronically offered to another user selected based on the user's location and/or relationship to the initial ticket provider.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0379529 to Agasti et al. (hereinafter “Agasti”). Agasti discloses determining whether a mobile computing device of a customer is in a pickup zone for a store. In response to determining that the mobile computing device is in the pickup zone, the system may notify the customer and request whether the customer wishes to initiate pickup of purchased items from the store.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is 571-270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 AM – 6:30 PM.
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 on Monday – Friday 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights