DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the original application filed on 10/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The current Application is a CON of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 which claims priority from Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/321,888 filed 03/21/2022. Therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 03/21/2022.
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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 1 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order;
providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle;
receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls; and
in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order,
wherein the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, the second user interface including an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items.
receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order;
in response to receiving the user input indicating submission of the online order, providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle, the providing comprising:
…
receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls;
in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order;
detecting, by the computing system, that the first computing device is located at a fulfillment location;
in response to detecting that the first computing device is located at the fulfillment location, displaying, on a lock screen of the first computing device, a notification prompting a user of the first computing device to input a location identifier; and
in response to receiving the location identifier from the first computing device, providing, by the computing system to a second user device associated with an employee at the fulfillment location, a second user interface including the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 2 of the current Application
Claim 6 of Patent No. 12,469,069
changing, within the first user interface, an appearance of a first user selectable control of the plurality of user selectable controls in response to user selection of the first user selectable control
in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, changing an appearance of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls on the first user interface
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 in view of High et al. (US 2017/0293991 A1), hereinafter High.
Claim 4 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items is stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device
Patent No. 12,469,069 does not explicitly disclose wherein the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items is stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device.
High, however, teaches a deliver preference for a vehicle (i.e. [0040]), including the known technique of the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items being stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device (High, see at least: “The client device 110, 120 may include a drone request or dispatch application that receives input from a user of the client device 110, 120 related to username, password, user profile information, information related to one or more vehicles, and/or delivery preference. The information related to one or more vehicles may include an image of the vehicle, a license plate number for the vehicle, a make and a model of the vehicle, a type of the vehicle (sedan or truck) and/or a color of the vehicle. The delivery preference indicates the user's preference on where or how the drone should deliver the basket. The received input may be provided to server 130 for storage in a user profile associated with the client device 110, 120 [i.e. is stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device]” [0023] and “the user profile includes a delivery preference for a vehicle [i.e. is stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device]. The dispatch module 220 transmits instructions to the drone 140, 150 to deliver the basket according to the delivery preference. The delivery preference may indicate how and where the user wants the basket delivered. For example, if the vehicle is a truck, the user may prefer that the basket is delivered to the truck bed or the rear loading area of the truck [i.e. wherein the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items]. If the vehicle is a sedan, the user may prefer that the basket is delivered in the trunk of the sedan” [0040]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a deliver preference for a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items being stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device, as taught by High, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items being stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device, as taught by High, into the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would indicate how and where the user wants their order delivered (High, [0040]).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 in view of High et al. (US 2017/0293991 A1), hereinafter High.
Claim 5 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the first user interface is provided as part of a profile creation process
Patent No. 12,469,069 does not explicitly disclose wherein the first user interface is provided as part of a profile creation process.
High, however, teaches a deliver preference for a vehicle (i.e. [0040]), including the known technique of the first user interface being provided as part of a profile creation process (High, see at least: “The client device 110, 120 may include a drone request or dispatch application that receives input from a user of the client device 110, 120 [i.e. wherein the first user interface] related to username, password, user profile information, information related to one or more vehicles, and/or delivery preference. The information related to one or more vehicles may include an image of the vehicle, a license plate number for the vehicle, a make and a model of the vehicle, a type of the vehicle (sedan or truck) and/or a color of the vehicle. The delivery preference indicates the user's preference on where or how the drone should deliver the basket. The received input may be provided to server 130 for storage in a user profile [i.e. is provided as part of a profile creation process] associated with the client device 110, 120” [0023]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a deliver preference for a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the first user interface being provided as part of a profile creation process, as taught by High, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the first user interface being provided as part of a profile creation process, as taught by High, into the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would indicate how and where the user wants their order delivered (High, [0040]).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 in view of Chopp et al. (US 2018/0276739 A1), hereinafter Chopp.
Claim 6 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the first user interface is provided in response to a determination that a user of the first computing device has arrived at a fulfillment location associated with the order
Patent No. 12,469,069 does not explicitly disclose wherein the first user interface is provided in response to a determination that a user of the first computing device has arrived at a fulfillment location associated with the order.
Chopp, however, teaches an integrated retail and ecommerce shopping platform (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of wherein the first user interface is provided in response to a determination that a user of the first computing device has arrived at a fulfillment location associated with the order (Chopp, see at least: “Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically [i.e. in response to a determination that a user of the first computing device has arrived at a fulfillment location associated with the order] adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. wherein the first user interface is provided]” [0137]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an integrated retail and ecommerce shopping platform.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the first user interface being provided in response to a determination that a user of the first computing device has arrived at a fulfillment location associated with the order, as taught by Chopp, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the first user interface being provided in response to a determination that a user of the first computing device has arrived at a fulfillment location associated with the order, as taught by Chopp, into the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would facilitate valet delivery of any purchased products to the vehicle (Chopp, [0082]).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 in view of Dulori et al. (US 2020/0234380 A1), hereinafter Dulori.
Claim 7 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the first user interface is provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route to a fulfillment location associated with the order
Patent No. 12,469,069 does not explicitly disclose he first user interface being provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route to a fulfillment location associated with the order.
Dulori, however, teaches picking up ordered goods (i.e. [0183]), including the known technique of the first user interface being provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route to a fulfillment location associated with the order (Dulori, see at least: “Vehicle occupant user 201 may be presented through vehicle occupant user interface 301 the ability to alter selections for their request of services at any time during the process including while vehicle occupant user's 201 vehicle is in route to the parking zone [i.e. wherein the first user interface is provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route] or even after arriving at the parking zone [i.e. to a fulfillment location associated with the order]” [0084] and “This allows service provider users 207 to operate more efficiently and provide customer user with the best quality goods or services. Such as if service provider user 207 is a pizza company, they will know the location of customer user 208 and thus can provide fresher pizza to them based on their location [i.e. associated with the order]” [0182]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to picking up ordered goods.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the first user interface being provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route to a fulfillment location associated with the order, as taught by Dulori, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the first user interface being provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route to a fulfillment location associated with the order, as taught by Dulori, into the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would visibly indicate the selection to the user (Dulori, [0092]).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 in view of Cook et al. (US 9,721,301 B2 ), hereinafter Cook.
Claim 8 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein each of the plurality of user selectable controls is an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle
Patent No. 12,469,069 does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of user selectable controls being an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle.
Cook, however, teaches selectable controls associated with a vehicle (i.e. Fig. 7), including the known technique of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle (Cook, see at least: “The vehicle information includes the year, make and model of the vehicle, as well as other, optional information, such as, for example, a digital image of the vehicle” Col. 5 Ln. 38-41 and “the graphical representation of the vehicle 710 includes an overhead image of the vehicle 715 and a plurality of selectable icons 720 [i.e. wherein each of the plurality of user selectable controls is an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle] surrounding, and/or superimposed on, the image 715” Col. 5 Ln. 45-48). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to selectable controls associated with a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle, as taught by Cook, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle, as taught by Cook, into the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would sends the list of vehicle components that are displayed to the customer (Cook, Col. 6 Ln. 10-12).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 9 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the number and spatial arrangement of the plurality of user selectable controls is at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device
accessing information on a vehicle type of the vehicle, a make of the vehicle, a model of the vehicle, or a combination thereof; and
customizing at least one of the plurality of user selectable controls based on the accessed information by providing a particular door arrangement for the vehicle with at least a first user selectable control corresponding to a first door of the particular door arrangement for the vehicle and a second user selectable control corresponding to a second door of the particular door arrangement for the vehicle
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 10 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls is at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device
accessing information on a vehicle type of the vehicle, a make of the vehicle, a model of the vehicle, or a combination thereof; and
customizing at least one of the plurality of user selectable controls based on the accessed information by providing a particular door arrangement for the vehicle with at least a first user selectable control corresponding to a first door of the particular door arrangement for the vehicle and a second user selectable control corresponding to a second door of the particular door arrangement for the vehicle
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 11 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls is at least in part based on information specific to a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device
accessing information on a vehicle type of the vehicle, a make of the vehicle, a model of the vehicle, or a combination thereof; and
customizing at least one of the plurality of user selectable controls based on the accessed information by providing a particular door arrangement for the vehicle with at least a first user selectable control corresponding to a first door of the particular door arrangement for the vehicle and a second user selectable control corresponding to a second door of the particular door arrangement for the vehicle
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 12 of the current Application
Claim 2 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:
a first user selectable control corresponding to a passenger side door of the vehicle;
a second user selectable control corresponding to a driver's side door of the vehicle; and
a third user selectable control corresponding to a trunk of the vehicle
wherein the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:
the first user selectable control further corresponding to a passenger side of the vehicle;
the second user selectable control further corresponding to a driver's side of the vehicle; and
a third user selectable control corresponding to a trunk of the vehicle
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 13 of the current Application
Claim 3 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:
a first user selectable control corresponding to a front driver's side door of the vehicle;
a second user selectable control corresponding to a front passenger's side door of the vehicle;
a third user selectable control corresponding to a rear driver's side door of the vehicle;
a fourth user selectable control corresponding to a rear passenger's side door of the vehicle; and
a fifth user selectable control corresponding to a trunk of the vehicle
wherein the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:
the first user selectable control further corresponding to a front driver's side door of the vehicle;
the second user selectable control further corresponding to a front passenger side door of the vehicle;
a third user selectable control corresponding to a rear driver's side portion of the vehicle;
a fourth user selectable control corresponding to a rear passenger's side of the vehicle; and
a fifth user selectable control corresponding to a trunk of the vehicle.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 14 of the current Application
Claim 4 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein:
the first user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front driver's side door of the vehicle;
the second user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front passenger side door of the vehicle;
the third user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear driver's side portion of the vehicle;
the fourth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear passenger's side of the vehicle; and
the fifth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the trunk of the vehicle
wherein:
the first user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front driver's side door of the vehicle;
the second user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front passenger side door of the vehicle;
the third user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear driver's side portion of the vehicle;
the fourth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear passenger's side of the vehicle; and
the fifth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the trunk of the vehicle
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 in view of Chopp et al. (US 2018/0276739 A1), hereinafter Chopp.
Claim 15 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the plurality of user selectable controls includes a control that allows the user to indicate an intention to not select a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order
Patent No. 12,469,069 does not explicitly disclose wherein the first user interface is provided in response to a determination that a user of the first computing device has arrived at a fulfillment location associated with the order.
Chopp, however, teaches an integrated retail and ecommerce shopping platform (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the plurality of user selectable controls including a control that allows the user to indicate an intention to not select a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order (Chopp, see at least: “If onsite, an onsite method is selected at block 240. Any onsite method may be included without departing from the scope of the present invention including, but not limited to, carry out, a customer drive-through pickup line where product can be picked up from a staging area 124a, pickup lockers 124b assigned to customers [i.e. wherein the plurality of user selectable controls includes a control that allows the user to indicate an intention to not select a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order], and an in-car delivery method in which valet attendants are available to place purchased products 102 into vehicles of customers” [0099]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an integrated retail and ecommerce shopping platform.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the plurality of user selectable controls including a control that allows the user to indicate an intention to not select a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order, as taught by Chopp, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the plurality of user selectable controls including a control that allows the user to indicate an intention to not select a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order, as taught by Chopp, into the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would facilitate valet delivery of any purchased products to the vehicle (Chopp, [0082]).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 in view of Chopp et al. (US 2018/0276739 A1), hereinafter Chopp.
Claim 16 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the plurality of user selectable controls includes at least one control that allows the user to indicate whether the one or more items in the online order should be placed on the floor or on the seat of an indicated portion of vehicle
Patent No. 12,469,069 does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of user selectable controls includes at least one control that allows the user to indicate whether the one or more items in the online order should be placed on the floor or on the seat of an indicated portion of vehicle.
Chopp, however, teaches an integrated retail and ecommerce shopping platform (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the plurality of user selectable controls including at least one control that allows the user to indicate whether the one or more items in the online order should be placed on the floor or on the seat of an indicated portion of vehicle (Chopp, see at least: “Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods [i.e. wherein the plurality of user selectable controls includes] for each of the selected products. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. at least one control that allows the user to indicate whether the one or more items in the online order should be placed on the floor or on the seat of an indicated portion of vehicle]” [0137]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an integrated retail and ecommerce shopping platform.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the plurality of user selectable controls including at least one control that allows the user to indicate whether the one or more items in the online order should be placed on the floor or on the seat of an indicated portion of vehicle, as taught by Chopp, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the plurality of user selectable controls including at least one control that allows the user to indicate whether the one or more items in the online order should be placed on the floor or on the seat of an indicated portion of vehicle, as taught by Chopp, into the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would facilitate valet delivery of any purchased products to the vehicle (Chopp, [0082]).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 in view of Agarwal et al. (US 10,417,691 B2), hereinafter Agarwal.
Claim 17 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the providing the first user interface including the plurality of user selectable controls is performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device
in response to receiving the user input indicating submission of the online order, providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle, the providing comprising:
Patent No. 12,469,069 does not explicitly disclose providing the first user interface being performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device.
Agarwal, however, teaches providing vehicle details for an order drop-off (i.e. Col. 13 Ln. 48-52), including the known technique of providing a first user interface being performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device (Agarwal, see at least: “Upon selecting a vehicle color [i.e. is performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device], the touchscreen 28 of the customer mobile computing device 20 displays the same information as previously displayed in FIG. 6 [i.e. providing a first user interface] (including the interactive map 50 including vehicle route information, the approximate amount of time 52 until arrival at the store, the approximate arrival time 54, the travel distance 56 to the store 12, the address of the store 58, the time-slot 60 for picking up the order, and an icon 62 identifying a customer-selected color of the vehicle that the customer plans to use to pick-up the customer order, as shown in FIG. 8” Col. 13 Ln. 60-67 & Col. 14 Ln. 1-2). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing vehicle details for an order drop-off.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of providing a first user interface being performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device, as taught by Agarwal, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the providing a first user interface being performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device, as taught by Agarwal, into the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would improve the efficiency of filling a customer order (Agarwal, Col. 5 Ln. 58-59).
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069 in view of Agarwal et al. (US 10,417,691 B2), hereinafter Agarwal.
Claim 18 of the current Application
Claim 1 of Patent No. 12,469,069
wherein the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device
Patent No. 12,469,069 does not explicitly disclose the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device.
Agarwal, however, teaches providing vehicle details for an order drop-off (i.e. Col. 13 Ln. 48-52), including the known technique of the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device (Agarwal, see at least: “the server computer 14 (via the customer application 18) displays a Vehicle Details screen as shown in FIG.7. The Vehicle Details screen a plurality of buttons 46, with each button 46 representing a different vehicle color (such as white, silver, red, brown, black, gray blue, and other) [i.e. wherein the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device]” Col. 13 Ln. 48-52 and Fig. 7). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing vehicle details for an order drop-off.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device, as taught by Agarwal, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device, as taught by Agarwal, into the method of Patent No. 12,469,069 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would improve the efficiency of filling a customer order (Agarwal, Col. 5 Ln. 58-59).
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 19 of the current Application
Claim 8 of Patent No. 12,469,069
one or more processors;
computer memory containing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order;
providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle;
receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls; and
in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order,
wherein the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, the second user interface including an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items
one or more processors;
computer memory containing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order;
in response to receiving the user input indicating submission of the online order, providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle, the providing comprising:
…
receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls;
in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order;
detecting, by the computing system, that the first computing device is located at a fulfillment location;
in response to detecting that the first computing device is located at the fulfillment location, displaying, on a lock screen of the first computing device, a notification prompting a user of the first computing device to input a location identifier; and
in response to receiving the location identifier from the first computing device, providing, by the computing system to a second user device associated with an employee at the fulfillment location, a second user interface including the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of one or more items in the online order
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,469,069. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
Claim 20 of the current Application
Claim 15 of Patent No. 12,469,069
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order;
providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle;
receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls; and
in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order,
wherein the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, the second user interface including an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items
receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order;
receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order;
in response to receiving the user input indicating submission of the online order, providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle, the providing comprising:
…
receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls;
in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order;
detecting, by the computing system, that the first computing device is located at a fulfillment location;
in response to detecting that the first computing device is located at the fulfillment location, displaying, on a lock screen of the first computing device, a notification prompting a user of the first computing device to input a location identifier; and
in response to receiving the location identifier from the first computing device, providing, by the computing system to a second user device associated with an employee at the fulfillment location, a second user interface including the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order
Examiner Note: Regarding claim 3, there is no double patenting as US Patent No. 12,469,069 and claim 3 are distinct inventions.
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., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 19 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-one or more processors;
-computer memory containing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
-receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process;
-receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order;
-receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order;
-providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable [options] controls, each of the plurality of user selectable [options] controls representing a different portion of a vehicle;
-receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable [options] controls; and
-in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable [options] controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order, wherein the computing system causes a second computing device to provide [to] a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, the second user interface including an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items
The above limitations recite the concept of providing item information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement for items in an order. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of computer memory containing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process; receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order; receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order; providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable [options] controls, each of the plurality of user selectable [options] controls representing a different portion of a vehicle; receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable [options] controls; and in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable [options] controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order, wherein the computing system causes a second computing device to provide [to] a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, the second user interface including an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the operations are performed via computer memory containing instructions that are executed by the one or more processors, that the receiving is by the first computing device, that the ordering process is an online ordering process, that the order is an online order, that the receiving is by the first computing device, that the receiving is by the first computing device, that the providing is of a first user interface and by the first computing device, that the plurality of user selectable options are a plurality of user selectable controls included in the first user interface, that the receiving is by the first computing device, that the one of the plurality of user selectable options are one of the plurality of user selectable controls, that the transmitting is to the computing system, that the providing caused by the computing system and is of a second user interface via a second computing device, and that the indication is included in the second user interface, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “computer memory containing instructions,” “one or more processors,” “a first computing device,” “an online ordering process” “an online order,” “a first user interface,” “a plurality of user selectable controls,” “one of the plurality of user selectable controls,” “a computing system,” “a second computing device,” and “a second user interface” language, “receiving,” “receiving,” “receiving,” “providing,” “receiving,” and “transmitting” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-one or more processors;
-computer memory containing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
-receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process;
-receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order;
-receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order;
-providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle;
-receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls; and
-in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order, wherein the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, the second user interface including an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 19 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0102] of Applicant’s specification – “These various implementations can include implementation in one or more computer programs that are executable and/or interpretable on a programmable system including at least one programmable processor, which may be special or general purpose.” Specifically, the additional elements of computer memory containing instructions, one or more processors, a first computing device, an online ordering process, an online order, a first user interface, a plurality of user selectable controls, one of the plurality of user selectable controls, a computing system, a second computing device, and a second user interface are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, providing data, and transmitting data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 19, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 1 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 19. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer implemented method, a first computing device, an online ordering process, an online order, a first user interface, a plurality of user selectable controls, one of the plurality of user selectable controls, a computing system, a second computing device, and a second user interface, however, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 19 indicated above.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium reciting similar functions as claim 19. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors, a first computing device, an online ordering process, an online order, a first user interface, a plurality of user selectable controls, one of the plurality of user selectable controls, a computing system, a second computing device, and a second user interface, however, claim 20 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 19 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 19, and 20 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-18, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-18 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 2-18 recite the additional elements of the first user interface, a first user selectable control of the plurality of user selectable controls, the first user selectable control, the computing system, the online order, the first computing device, the plurality of user selectable controls, an icon, a first user selectable control, a second user selectable control, a third user selectable control, a fourth user selectable control, a fifth user selectable control, a control, a first vehicle type icon, and a plurality of vehicle type icons, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-18 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-18 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 19, and 20, dependent claims 2-18 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. providing item information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement for items in an order) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopp et al. (US 2018/0276739 A1), hereinafter Chopp, in view of Siefken et al. (US 2022/0036898 A1), hereinafter Siefken.
Regarding claim 1, Chopp discloses a computer implemented method comprising:
-receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process (Chopp, see at least: “Process 200 then proceeds to decision point 208, at which process 200 determines whether one or more products have been selected in advance of visiting facility 106. For example, the customer may have shopped from home or another remote location via a customer client device prior to visiting facility 106. If no products were selected in advance of the customer's trip to facility 106, the shopper selects product(s) at block 210 [i.e. receiving, by a first computing device, user input initiating an online ordering process], product(s) are placed in a virtual cart at block 212” [0090]);
-receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order (Chopp, see at least: “Process 200 then proceeds to decision point 208, at which process 200 determines whether one or more products have been selected in advance of visiting facility 106. For example, the customer may have shopped from home or another remote location via a customer client device prior to visiting facility 106. If no products were selected in advance of the customer's trip to facility 106, the shopper selects product(s) at block 210, product(s) are placed in a virtual cart at block 212 [i.e. receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order]” [0090]);
-receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order (Chopp, see at least: “At decision point 232, it is determined whether all products desired to be evaluated have been evaluated by the customer … if at 232, all products have been evaluated, the process 200 proceeds to decision point 233, at which it queries whether the user wishes to shop for additional items … If no, process 200 proceeds to decision point 234, at which it queries whether the customer is ready to purchase one or more of the selected products. If no, process 200 returns to block 210, and proceeds as discussed above. If the answer to the question “Ready to purchase?” is yes, the customer wishes to purchase some or all of the products. Process 200 proceeds to block 236, at which payment is made by the customer for the products the customer is purchasing, and the sale is completed [i.e. receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order]” [0097]);
-providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle (Chopp, see at least: “After the sale is completed at block 236, process 200 proceeds to decision point 238, at which it queries whether the product delivery will be onsite or remote and which of the purchased products will be delivered in that manner [i.e. providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface] … If onsite, an onsite method is selected at block 240. Any onsite method may be included without departing from the scope of the present invention including, but not limited to, carry out, a customer drive-through pickup line where product can be picked up from a staging area 124 a, pickup lockers 124 b assigned to customers, and an in-car delivery method in which valet attendants are available to place purchased products 102 into vehicles of customers” [0099] and “Upon trying on her apparel and deciding what apparel she wants to buy and what she will pass on, Jane can either modify her virtual cart to include those she wants one at a time via her mobile shopping system application, or she can hang up the apparel she wishes to keep on a “buy” hook or rod, and the remaining on a return hook/rod. Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle]” [0137] and see also [0084]);
-receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls (Chopp, see at least: “Upon trying on her apparel and deciding what apparel she wants to buy and what she will pass on, Jane can either modify her virtual cart to include those she wants one at a time via her mobile shopping system application, or she can hang up the apparel she wishes to keep on a “buy” hook or rod, and the remaining on a return hook/rod. Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods [i.e. receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls]. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc.” [0137] and “The interactive shopping interface pages 136 are selectively displayed to the customer and receive input from the customer as needed to achieve the benefits and goals of the present invention. The various interactive shopping interface pages 136 are described throughout and may include, but are not limited to, pages for: conveying information about products 102 sold by the shopping system 100; receiving information from the customer regarding selected and deselected products; displaying a customer’s virtual cart to the customer; allowing a customer to purchase products; allowing a customer to input product delivery method [i.e. receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls], time, and/or location; displaying navigational pages to the customer; and allowing the customer to request a product for inspection at the customer's location or some other location” [0084]); and
-in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order (Chopp, see at least: “Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products [i.e. to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls] . She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order]” [0137] and “Regardless of the type of delivery selected by the customer, in some embodiments, optionally, the customer may pick a delivery (or pickup) time at block 242 … Next, at 243, [i.e. in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls] process 200 prompts the user to input whether additional deliveries are required. If yes, process 200 returns to 238. If no, process 200 proceeds to 245, at which the product is delivered [i.e. transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order]. Then, the process 200 ends at block 248” [0101] and “computing system environment 400 for allowing a user of a computing device 302 (described in detail below) to receive content via a network and/or server such as server 402 and to perform the techniques described herein with respect to FIGS. 1 and 2. Such a network-based embodiment is suitable for allowing customers to purchase products 102 via shopping system 100 [i.e. transmitting, to a computing system] as per the present invention as described herein” [0105]),
-wherein the computing system provides in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items (Chopp, see at least: “Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products [i.e. to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls]. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. wherein the computing system provides an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items]” [0137] and “Regardless of the type of delivery selected by the customer, in some embodiments, optionally, the customer may pick a delivery (or pickup) time at block 242 … Next, at 243, process 200 prompts the user to input whether additional deliveries are required. If yes, process 200 returns to 238. If no, process 200 proceeds to 245, at which the product is delivered [i.e. in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items]. Then, the process 200 ends at block 248” [0101]).
Chopp does not explicitly disclose the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, the second user interface including an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items.
Siefken, however, teaches delivering ordered products to vehicle occupants (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating a location, the second user interface including an indication of the location (Siefken, see at least: “a customer may initiate a transaction via a mobile phone 47 that has an application program interface which interacts with the DT Order Taker 130” [0083] and “the user interface engine 190 causes the user interface 195 to be accessible via a plurality of devices, such as a terminal in the eatery and a portable device which may be held by a runner, i.e., an eatery worker [i.e. the computing system causes a second computing device] located at the drive-thru who is tasked with delivering orders to waiting vehicles in the drive-thru or parking lot” [0084] and “the user interface engine 190 further updates the user interface 195 by incorporating lane information relating to the vehicle whose attributes were incorporated at step 602 [i.e. to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating a location]. In particular, for a drive-thru having two lanes, the user interface engine 190 determines whether the virtual environment should instantiate a virtual model of the vehicle in either a first lane or a second lane of the two lanes in addition to the approximate location of the vehicle in the first or second lane [i.e. the second user interface including an indication of the location] as gleaned from the cameras 180” [0109]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering ordered products to vehicle occupants.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating a location, the second user interface including an indication of the location, as taught by Siefken, to the teachings of Chopp would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating a location, the second user interface including an indication of the location, as taught by Siefken, into the method of Chopp would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would accelerate food/beverage delivery to vehicle occupants (Siefken, abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1. Chopp further discloses:
-wherein the first user interface is provided in response to a determination that a user of the first computing device has arrived at a fulfillment location associated with the order (Chopp, see at least: “Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically [i.e. in response to a determination that a user of the first computing device has arrived at a fulfillment location associated with the order] adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. wherein the first user interface is provided]” [0137]).
Regarding claim 15, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1. Chopp further discloses:
-wherein the plurality of user selectable controls includes a control that allows the user to indicate an intention to not select a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order (Chopp, see at least: “If onsite, an onsite method is selected at block 240. Any onsite method may be included without departing from the scope of the present invention including, but not limited to, carry out, a customer drive-through pickup line where product can be picked up from a staging area 124a, pickup lockers 124b assigned to customers [i.e. wherein the plurality of user selectable controls includes a control that allows the user to indicate an intention to not select a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order], and an in-car delivery method in which valet attendants are available to place purchased products 102 into vehicles of customers” [0099]).
Regarding claim 16, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1. Chopp further discloses:
-wherein the plurality of user selectable controls includes at least one control that allows the user to indicate whether the one or more items in the online order should be placed on the floor or on the seat of an indicated portion of vehicle (Chopp, see at least: “Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods [i.e. wherein the plurality of user selectable controls includes] for each of the selected products. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. at least one control that allows the user to indicate whether the one or more items in the online order should be placed on the floor or on the seat of an indicated portion of vehicle]” [0137]).
Claim 19 recite limitations directed towards system comprising: one or more processors; computer memory containing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations (Chopp, see at least: “The depicted computing system environment depicted in FIG. 4 is exemplary of one suitable computing environment and is not intended to suggest any limitation as to the scope of use or functionality. Numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments, computing devices, and configurations may be used or substituted. Examples of well-known computing systems, devices, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use include, but are not limited to, personal computers (“PCs”), server computers, handheld or laptop devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based systems” [0107]). The limitations recited in claim 19 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Chopp discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the performance of operations comprising:
-receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order (Chopp, see at least: “Process 200 then proceeds to decision point 208, at which process 200 determines whether one or more products have been selected in advance of visiting facility 106. For example, the customer may have shopped from home or another remote location via a customer client device prior to visiting facility 106. If no products were selected in advance of the customer's trip to facility 106, the shopper selects product(s) at block 210, product(s) are placed in a virtual cart at block 212 [i.e. receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating selection of one or more items for inclusion in an online order]” [0090]);
-receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order (Chopp, see at least: “At decision point 232, it is determined whether all products desired to be evaluated have been evaluated by the customer … if at 232, all products have been evaluated, the process 200 proceeds to decision point 233, at which it queries whether the user wishes to shop for additional items … If no, process 200 proceeds to decision point 234, at which it queries whether the customer is ready to purchase one or more of the selected products. If no, process 200 returns to block 210, and proceeds as discussed above. If the answer to the question “Ready to purchase?” is yes, the customer wishes to purchase some or all of the products. Process 200 proceeds to block 236, at which payment is made by the customer for the products the customer is purchasing, and the sale is completed [i.e. receiving, by the first computing device, user input indicating submission of the online order]” [0097]);
-providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle (Chopp, see at least: “After the sale is completed at block 236, process 200 proceeds to decision point 238, at which it queries whether the product delivery will be onsite or remote and which of the purchased products will be delivered in that manner [i.e. providing, by the first computing device, a first user interface] … If onsite, an onsite method is selected at block 240. Any onsite method may be included without departing from the scope of the present invention including, but not limited to, carry out, a customer drive-through pickup line where product can be picked up from a staging area 124 a, pickup lockers 124 b assigned to customers, and an in-car delivery method in which valet attendants are available to place purchased products 102 into vehicles of customers” [0099] and “Upon trying on her apparel and deciding what apparel she wants to buy and what she will pass on, Jane can either modify her virtual cart to include those she wants one at a time via her mobile shopping system application, or she can hang up the apparel she wishes to keep on a “buy” hook or rod, and the remaining on a return hook/rod. Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. the first user interface including a plurality of user selectable controls, each of the plurality of user selectable controls representing a different portion of a vehicle]” [0137] and see also [0084]);
-receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls (Chopp, see at least: “Upon trying on her apparel and deciding what apparel she wants to buy and what she will pass on, Jane can either modify her virtual cart to include those she wants one at a time via her mobile shopping system application, or she can hang up the apparel she wishes to keep on a “buy” hook or rod, and the remaining on a return hook/rod. Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods [i.e. receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls]. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc.” [0137] and “The interactive shopping interface pages 136 are selectively displayed to the customer and receive input from the customer as needed to achieve the benefits and goals of the present invention. The various interactive shopping interface pages 136 are described throughout and may include, but are not limited to, pages for: conveying information about products 102 sold by the shopping system 100; receiving information from the customer regarding selected and deselected products; displaying a customer’s virtual cart to the customer; allowing a customer to purchase products; allowing a customer to input product delivery method [i.e. receiving, by the first computing device, an indication of user selection of one of the plurality of user selectable controls], time, and/or location; displaying navigational pages to the customer; and allowing the customer to request a product for inspection at the customer's location or some other location” [0084]); and
-in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls, transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order (Chopp, see at least: “Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products [i.e. to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls] . She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order]” [0137] and “Regardless of the type of delivery selected by the customer, in some embodiments, optionally, the customer may pick a delivery (or pickup) time at block 242 … Next, at 243, [i.e. in response to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls] process 200 prompts the user to input whether additional deliveries are required. If yes, process 200 returns to 238. If no, process 200 proceeds to 245, at which the product is delivered [i.e. transmitting, to a computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order]. Then, the process 200 ends at block 248” [0101] and “computing system environment 400 for allowing a user of a computing device 302 (described in detail below) to receive content via a network and/or server such as server 402 and to perform the techniques described herein with respect to FIGS. 1 and 2. Such a network-based embodiment is suitable for allowing customers to purchase products 102 via shopping system 100 [i.e. transmitting, to a computing system] as per the present invention as described herein” [0105]),
-wherein the computing system to provides in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items (Chopp, see at least: “Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products [i.e. to receiving the indication of user selection of the one of the plurality of user selectable controls]. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. wherein the computing system provides an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items]” [0137] and “Regardless of the type of delivery selected by the customer, in some embodiments, optionally, the customer may pick a delivery (or pickup) time at block 242 … Next, at 243, process 200 prompts the user to input whether additional deliveries are required. If yes, process 200 returns to 238. If no, process 200 proceeds to 245, at which the product is delivered [i.e. in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items]. Then, the process 200 ends at block 248” [0101]).
Chopp does not explicitly disclose the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items, the second user interface including an indication of the location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items.
Siefken, however, teaches delivering ordered products to vehicle occupants (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating a location, the second user interface including an indication of the location (Siefken, see at least: “a customer may initiate a transaction via a mobile phone 47 that has an application program interface which interacts with the DT Order Taker 130” [0083] and “the user interface engine 190 causes the user interface 195 to be accessible via a plurality of devices, such as a terminal in the eatery and a portable device which may be held by a runner, i.e., an eatery worker [i.e. the computing system causes a second computing device] located at the drive-thru who is tasked with delivering orders to waiting vehicles in the drive-thru or parking lot” [0084] and “the user interface engine 190 further updates the user interface 195 by incorporating lane information relating to the vehicle whose attributes were incorporated at step 602 [i.e. to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating a location]. In particular, for a drive-thru having two lanes, the user interface engine 190 determines whether the virtual environment should instantiate a virtual model of the vehicle in either a first lane or a second lane of the two lanes in addition to the approximate location of the vehicle in the first or second lane [i.e. the second user interface including an indication of the location] as gleaned from the cameras 180” [0109]). This known technique is applicable to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Chopp as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering ordered products to vehicle occupants.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating a location, the second user interface including an indication of the location, as taught by Siefken, to the teachings of Chopp would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar non-transitory computer-readable mediums. Further, including the modification of the computing system causes a second computing device to provide a second user interface in response to receiving the information indicating a location, the second user interface including an indication of the location, as taught by Siefken, into the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Chopp would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved non-transitory computer-readable medium that would accelerate food/beverage delivery to vehicle occupants (Siefken, abstract).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopp, in view of Siefken, in further view of Dulori et al. (US 2020/0234380 A1), hereinafter Dulori.
Regarding claim 2, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach changing, within the first user interface, an appearance of a first user selectable control of the plurality of user selectable controls in response to user selection of the first user selectable control.
Dulori, however, teaches picking up ordered goods (i.e. [0183]), including the known technique of changing, within the first user interface, an appearance of a first user selectable control of the plurality of user selectable controls in response to user selection of the first user selectable control (Dulori, see at least: “Once confirmed by valet user 203 [i.e. in response to user selection of the first user selectable control] or automatically chosen for valet user 203, the indicator for vehicle occupant user's 201 vehicle to be picked up may change color or activate another effect visible through valet user interface 303 [i.e. changing, within the first user interface, an appearance of a first user selectable control of the plurality of user selectable controls]. Valet user interface 303 may also present valet user 203 more information about the pickup location (e.g., name of point of interest, latitude and longitude coordinates, and address, or a cross-street that may be represented by an indicator on a map showing the area surrounding valet user 203.)” [0092]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to picking up ordered goods.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of changing, within the first user interface, an appearance of a first user selectable control of the plurality of user selectable controls in response to user selection of the first user selectable control, as taught by Dulori, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of changing, within the first user interface, an appearance of a first user selectable control of the plurality of user selectable controls in response to user selection of the first user selectable control, as taught by Dulori, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would visibly indicate the selection to the user (Dulori, [0092]).
Regarding claim 7, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach the first user interface being provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route to a fulfillment location associated with the order.
Dulori, however, teaches picking up ordered goods (i.e. [0183]), including the known technique of the first user interface being provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route to a fulfillment location associated with the order (Dulori, see at least: “Vehicle occupant user 201 may be presented through vehicle occupant user interface 301 the ability to alter selections for their request of services at any time during the process including while vehicle occupant user's 201 vehicle is in route to the parking zone [i.e. wherein the first user interface is provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route] or even after arriving at the parking zone [i.e. to a fulfillment location associated with the order]” [0084] and “This allows service provider users 207 to operate more efficiently and provide customer user with the best quality goods or services. Such as if service provider user 207 is a pizza company, they will know the location of customer user 208 and thus can provide fresher pizza to them based on their location [i.e. associated with the order]” [0182]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to picking up ordered goods.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the first user interface being provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route to a fulfillment location associated with the order, as taught by Dulori, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the first user interface being provided in response to an indication that a user of the first computing device is en route to a fulfillment location associated with the order, as taught by Dulori, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would visibly indicate the selection to the user (Dulori, [0092]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopp, in view of Siefken, in further view of High et al. (US 2017/0293991 A1), hereinafter High.
Regarding claim 4, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items is stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device.
High, however, teaches a deliver preference for a vehicle (i.e. [0040]), including the known technique of the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items being stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device (High, see at least: “The client device 110, 120 may include a drone request or dispatch application that receives input from a user of the client device 110, 120 related to username, password, user profile information, information related to one or more vehicles, and/or delivery preference. The information related to one or more vehicles may include an image of the vehicle, a license plate number for the vehicle, a make and a model of the vehicle, a type of the vehicle (sedan or truck) and/or a color of the vehicle. The delivery preference indicates the user's preference on where or how the drone should deliver the basket. The received input may be provided to server 130 for storage in a user profile associated with the client device 110, 120 [i.e. is stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device]” [0023] and “the user profile includes a delivery preference for a vehicle [i.e. is stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device]. The dispatch module 220 transmits instructions to the drone 140, 150 to deliver the basket according to the delivery preference. The delivery preference may indicate how and where the user wants the basket delivered. For example, if the vehicle is a truck, the user may prefer that the basket is delivered to the truck bed or the rear loading area of the truck [i.e. wherein the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items]. If the vehicle is a sedan, the user may prefer that the basket is delivered in the trunk of the sedan” [0040]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a deliver preference for a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items being stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device, as taught by High, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the indicated location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items being stored by the computing system in association with a user profile for a user of the first computing device, as taught by High, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would indicate how and where the user wants their order delivered (High, [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach the first user interface being provided as part of a profile creation process.
High, however, teaches a deliver preference for a vehicle (i.e. [0040]), including the known technique of the first user interface being provided as part of a profile creation process (High, see at least: “The client device 110, 120 may include a drone request or dispatch application that receives input from a user of the client device 110, 120 [i.e. wherein the first user interface] related to username, password, user profile information, information related to one or more vehicles, and/or delivery preference. The information related to one or more vehicles may include an image of the vehicle, a license plate number for the vehicle, a make and a model of the vehicle, a type of the vehicle (sedan or truck) and/or a color of the vehicle. The delivery preference indicates the user's preference on where or how the drone should deliver the basket. The received input may be provided to server 130 for storage in a user profile [i.e. is provided as part of a profile creation process] associated with the client device 110, 120” [0023]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a deliver preference for a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the first user interface being provided as part of a profile creation process, as taught by High, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the first user interface being provided as part of a profile creation process, as taught by High, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would indicate how and where the user wants their order delivered (High, [0040]).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopp, in view of Siefken, in further view of Cook et al. (US 9,721,301 B2 ), hereinafter Cook.
Regarding claim 8, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of user selectable controls being an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle.
Cook, however, teaches selectable controls associated with a vehicle (i.e. Fig. 7), including the known technique of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle (Cook, see at least: “The vehicle information includes the year, make and model of the vehicle, as well as other, optional information, such as, for example, a digital image of the vehicle” Col. 5 Ln. 38-41 and “the graphical representation of the vehicle 710 includes an overhead image of the vehicle 715 and a plurality of selectable icons 720 [i.e. wherein each of the plurality of user selectable controls is an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle] surrounding, and/or superimposed on, the image 715” Col. 5 Ln. 45-48). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to selectable controls associated with a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle, as taught by Cook, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being an icon depicting a portion of an overhead view drawing of a vehicle, as taught by Cook, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would sends the list of vehicle components that are displayed to the customer (Cook, Col. 6 Ln. 10-12).
Regarding claim 9, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach the number and spatial arrangement of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device.
Cook, however, teaches selectable controls associated with a vehicle (i.e. Fig. 7), including the known technique of the number and spatial arrangement of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device (Cook, see at least: “The vehicle information includes the year, make and model of the vehicle, as well as other, optional information, such as, for example, a digital image of the vehicle [i.e. at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device]” Col. 5 Ln. 38-41 and “the graphical representation of the vehicle 710 includes an overhead image of the vehicle 715 and a plurality of selectable icons 720 surrounding, and/or superimposed on, the image 715 [i.e. wherein the number and spatial arrangement of the plurality of user selectable controls is at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device]” Col. 5 Ln. 45-48). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to selectable controls associated with a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the number and spatial arrangement of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device, as taught by Cook, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the number and spatial arrangement of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device, as taught by Cook, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would sends the list of vehicle components that are displayed to the customer (Cook, Col. 6 Ln. 10-12).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chopp/Siefken/Cook teaches the method of claim 9.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device.
Cook, however, teaches selectable controls associated with a vehicle (i.e. Fig. 7), including the known technique of a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device (Cook, see at least: “The vehicle information includes the year, make and model of the vehicle, as well as other, optional information, such as, for example, a digital image of the vehicle [i.e. based on information indicating a make and model of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device]” Col. 5 Ln. 38-41 and “the graphical representation of the vehicle 710 includes an overhead image of the vehicle 715 and a plurality of selectable icons 720 surrounding, and/or superimposed on, the image 715 [i.e. wherein a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls is at least in part based on information indicating a make and model of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device]” Col. 5 Ln. 45-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chopp in view of Siefken with Cook for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information specific to a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device.
Cook, however, teaches selectable controls associated with a vehicle (i.e. Fig. 7), including the known technique of a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information specific to a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device (Cook, see at least: “The vehicle information includes the year, make and model of the vehicle, as well as other, optional information, such as, for example, a digital image of the vehicle [i.e. based on information specific to a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device]” Col. 5 Ln. 38-41 and “the graphical representation of the vehicle 710 includes an overhead image of the vehicle 715 and a plurality of selectable icons 720 surrounding, and/or superimposed on, the image 715 [i.e. wherein a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls is at least in part based on information specific to a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device]” Col. 5 Ln. 45-48). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to selectable controls associated with a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information specific to a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device, as taught by Cook, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of a visual aspect of each of the plurality of user selectable controls being at least in part based on information specific to a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device, as taught by Cook, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would sends the list of vehicle components that are displayed to the customer (Cook, Col. 6 Ln. 10-12).
Regarding claim 12, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
-wherein the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:
-a first user selectable control corresponding to a passenger side door of the vehicle (Chopp, see at least: “Upon trying on her apparel and deciding what apparel she wants to buy and what she will pass on, Jane can either modify her virtual cart to include those she wants one at a time via her mobile shopping system application, or she can hang up the apparel she wishes to keep on a “buy” hook or rod, and the remaining on a return hook/rod. Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products [i.e. the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:]. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat [i.e. a first user selectable control corresponding to a passenger side door of the vehicle], etc.” [0137]);
-a third user selectable control corresponding to a trunk of the vehicle (Chopp, see at least: “Upon trying on her apparel and deciding what apparel she wants to buy and what she will pass on, Jane can either modify her virtual cart to include those she wants one at a time via her mobile shopping system application, or she can hang up the apparel she wishes to keep on a “buy” hook or rod, and the remaining on a return hook/rod. Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products [i.e. the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:]. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, [i.e. a third user selectable control corresponding to a trunk of the vehicle] hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc.” [0137]).
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach the plurality of user selectable controls comprising: a second user selectable control corresponding to a driver's side door of the vehicle.
Cook, however, teaches selectable controls associated with a vehicle (i.e. Fig. 7), including the known technique of the plurality of user selectable controls comprising: a second user selectable control corresponding to a driver's side door of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface with selectable controls corresponding to different locations on the vehicle including driver side doors [i.e. the plurality of user selectable controls comprises: a second user selectable control corresponding to a driver's side door of the vehicle]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to selectable controls associated with a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the plurality of user selectable controls comprising: a second user selectable control corresponding to a driver's side door of the vehicle, as taught by Cook, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the plurality of user selectable controls comprising: a second user selectable control corresponding to a driver's side door of the vehicle, as taught by Cook, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would sends the list of vehicle components that are displayed to the customer (Cook, Col. 6 Ln. 10-12).
Regarding claim 13, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
-wherein the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:
-a fifth user selectable control corresponding to a trunk of the vehicle (Chopp, see at least: “Upon trying on her apparel and deciding what apparel she wants to buy and what she will pass on, Jane can either modify her virtual cart to include those she wants one at a time via her mobile shopping system application, or she can hang up the apparel she wishes to keep on a “buy” hook or rod, and the remaining on a return hook/rod. Upon leaving the dressing room, the hook/rod system returns the clothing to the picker 154 allocated to Jane and automatically adds all items on the Buy hook/rod to Jane's virtual cart. Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products [i.e. the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:]. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, [i.e. a fifth user selectable control corresponding to a trunk of the vehicle] hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc.” [0137]).
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach the plurality of user selectable controls comprising: a first user selectable control corresponding to a front driver's side door of the vehicle; a second user selectable control corresponding to a front passenger's side door of the vehicle; a third user selectable control corresponding to a rear driver's side door of the vehicle; and a fourth user selectable control corresponding to a rear passenger's side door of the vehicle.
Cook, however, teaches selectable controls associated with a vehicle (i.e. Fig. 7), including the known technique of the plurality of user selectable controls comprising a first user selectable control corresponding to a front driver's side door of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface with selectable controls [i.e. the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:] corresponding to different locations on the vehicle including a front driver side [i.e. a first user selectable control corresponding to a front driver's side door of the vehicle], driver side doors, a rear driver side, a front passenger side, passenger side doors, a rear passenger side, and the trunk);
the known technique of a second user selectable control corresponding to a front passenger's side door of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface with selectable controls [i.e. the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:] corresponding to different locations on the vehicle including a front driver side, driver side doors, a rear driver side, a front passenger side [i.e. a second user selectable control corresponding to a front passenger side door of the vehicle], passenger side doors, a rear passenger side, and the trunk);
the known technique of a third user selectable control corresponding to a rear driver's side door of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface with selectable controls [i.e. the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:] corresponding to different locations on the vehicle including a front driver side, driver side doors, a rear driver side [i.e. a third user selectable control corresponding to a rear driver's side door of the vehicle], a front passenger side, passenger side doors, a rear passenger side, and the trunk); and
the known technique of a fourth user selectable control corresponding to a rear passenger's side door of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface with selectable controls [i.e. the plurality of user selectable controls comprises:] corresponding to different locations on the vehicle including a front driver side, driver side doors, a rear driver side, a front passenger side, passenger side doors, a rear passenger side [i.e. a fourth user selectable control corresponding to a rear passenger's side door of the vehicle], and the trunk). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to selectable controls associated with a vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of the plurality of user selectable controls comprising: a first user selectable control corresponding to a front driver's side door of the vehicle; a second user selectable control corresponding to a front passenger's side door of the vehicle; a third user selectable control corresponding to a rear driver's side door of the vehicle; and a fourth user selectable control corresponding to a rear passenger's side door of the vehicle, as taught by Cook, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modifications of the plurality of user selectable controls comprising: a first user selectable control corresponding to a front driver's side door of the vehicle; a second user selectable control corresponding to a front passenger's side door of the vehicle; a third user selectable control corresponding to a rear driver's side door of the vehicle; and a fourth user selectable control corresponding to a rear passenger's side door of the vehicle, as taught by Cook, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would sends the list of vehicle components that are displayed to the customer (Cook, Col. 6 Ln. 10-12).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chopp/Siefken/Cook teaches the method of claim 13.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach the first user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front driver's side door of the vehicle; the second user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front passenger side door of the vehicle; the third user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear driver's side portion of the vehicle; the fourth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear passenger's side of the vehicle; and the fifth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the trunk of the vehicle.
Cook further teaches selectable controls associated with a vehicle (i.e. Fig. 7), including the known technique of the first user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front driver's side door of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface displaying an image of a vehicle with selectable controls corresponding to different locations on the image of the vehicle [i.e. a graphic depiction of the front driver's side] including a front driver side, driver side doors [i.e. the first user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front driver's side door of the vehicle], a rear driver side, a front passenger side, passenger side doors, a rear passenger side, and the trunk);
the known technique of the second user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front passenger side door of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface displaying an image of a vehicle with selectable controls corresponding to different locations on the image of the vehicle [i.e. a graphic depiction of the front passenger side door of the vehicle] including a front driver side, driver side doors, a rear driver side, a front passenger side, passenger side doors [i.e. the second user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the front passenger side door of the vehicle], a rear passenger side, and the trunk);
the known technique of the third user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear driver's side portion of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface displaying an image of a vehicle with selectable controls corresponding to different locations on the image of the vehicle [i.e. a graphic depiction of the rear driver's side portion of the vehicle] including a front driver side, driver side doors, a rear driver side [i.e. the third user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear driver's side portion of the vehicle], a front passenger side, passenger side doors, a rear passenger side, and the trunk);
the known technique of the fourth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear passenger's side of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface displaying an image of a vehicle with selectable controls corresponding to different locations on the image of the vehicle [i.e. a graphic depiction of the rear passenger's side of the vehicle] including a front driver side, driver side doors, a rear driver side, a front passenger side, passenger side doors, a rear passenger side [i.e. the fourth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the rear passenger's side of the vehicle], and the trunk); and
the known technique of the fifth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the trunk of the vehicle (Cook, see at least: reference 720 in Fig. 700 shows an interface displaying an image of a vehicle with selectable controls corresponding to different locations on the image of the vehicle [i.e. a graphic depiction of the trunk of the vehicle] including a front driver side, driver side doors, a rear driver side, a front passenger side, passenger side doors, a rear passenger side, and the trunk [i.e. the fifth user selectable control includes a graphic depiction of the trunk of the vehicle]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chopp in view of Siefken with Cook for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 13.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopp, in view of Siefken, in further view of Agarwal et al. (US 10,417,691 B2), hereinafter Agarwal.
Regarding claim 17, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1. Chopp further discloses:
-wherein the providing the first user interface including the plurality of user selectable controls (Chopp, see at least: “After the sale is completed at block 236, process 200 proceeds to decision point 238, at which it queries whether the product delivery will be onsite or remote and which of the purchased products will be delivered in that manner [i.e. wherein the providing the first user interface] … If onsite, an onsite method is selected at block 240. Any onsite method may be included without departing from the scope of the present invention including, but not limited to, carry out, a customer drive-through pickup line where product can be picked up from a staging area 124 a, pickup lockers 124 b assigned to customers, and an in-car delivery method in which valet attendants are available to place purchased products 102 into vehicles of customers” [0099] and “Jane can then select (on a product by product basis), the delivery methods for each of the selected products. She can also select various criteria for such delivery methods. For example, on a product by product basis, Jane can determine the locations within her vehicle a valet should locate her purchased products, for example, trunk, hook in the back, lay flat on the front seat, etc. [i.e. t wherein the providing the first user interface including the plurality of user selectable controls]” [0137] and see also [0084]).
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach providing the first user interface being performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device.
Agarwal, however, teaches providing vehicle details for an order drop-off (i.e. Col. 13 Ln. 48-52), including the known technique of providing a first user interface being performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device (Agarwal, see at least: “Upon selecting a vehicle color [i.e. is performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device], the touchscreen 28 of the customer mobile computing device 20 displays the same information as previously displayed in FIG. 6 [i.e. providing a first user interface] (including the interactive map 50 including vehicle route information, the approximate amount of time 52 until arrival at the store, the approximate arrival time 54, the travel distance 56 to the store 12, the address of the store 58, the time-slot 60 for picking up the order, and an icon 62 identifying a customer-selected color of the vehicle that the customer plans to use to pick-up the customer order, as shown in FIG. 8” Col. 13 Ln. 60-67 & Col. 14 Ln. 1-2). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing vehicle details for an order drop-off.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of providing a first user interface being performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device, as taught by Agarwal, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the providing a first user interface being performed responsive to receiving user input indicating a vehicle type of a vehicle associated with a user of the first computing device, as taught by Agarwal, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would improve the efficiency of filling a customer order (Agarwal, Col. 5 Ln. 58-59).
Regarding claim 18, Chopp in view of Siefken teaches the method of claim 1.
Chopp in view of Siefken does not explicitly teach the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device.
Agarwal, however, teaches providing vehicle details for an order drop-off (i.e. Col. 13 Ln. 48-52), including the known technique of the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device (Agarwal, see at least: “the server computer 14 (via the customer application 18) displays a Vehicle Details screen as shown in FIG.7. The Vehicle Details screen a plurality of buttons 46, with each button 46 representing a different vehicle color (such as white, silver, red, brown, black, gray blue, and other) [i.e. wherein the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device]” Col. 13 Ln. 48-52 and Fig. 7). This known technique is applicable to the method of Chopp in view of Siefken as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing vehicle details for an order drop-off.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device, as taught by Agarwal, to the teachings of Chopp in view of Siefken would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including the modification of the user input indicating the vehicle type of the vehicle associated with the user of the first computing device takes the form of selection of a first vehicle type icon from a plurality of vehicle type icons displayed on the first computing device, as taught by Agarwal, into the method of Chopp in view of Siefken would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would improve the efficiency of filling a customer order (Agarwal, Col. 5 Ln. 58-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent Claim 3
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over 35 U.S.C. §103:
In the present application, dependent claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance over the prior art:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention.
Dependent claim 3 is allowable over 35 USC § 103 as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Chopp et al. (US 2018/0276739 A1), Siefken et al. (US 2022/0036898 A1), Dulori et al. (US 2020/0234380 A1), and Katz et al. (US 2021/0209548 A1).
The combination of Chopp/Siefken/Dulori teaches the method of claim 2.
As written, dependent claim 3 (which depends from claim 2) requires after changing the appearance of the first user selectable control, receiving additional user input confirming selection of the first user selectable control, wherein the transmitting, to the computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order is performed responsive to receiving the additional user input confirming selection of the first user selectable control.
While Dulori teaches changing the appearance of the first user selectable control (Dulori, see at least: [0092]) and Katz teaches receiving additional user input confirming selection of the first user selectable control, wherein the transmitting, to the computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order is performed responsive to receiving the additional user input confirming selection of the first user selectable control (Katz, see at least: [0041]), the combination of Chopp/Siefken/Dulori/Katz does not teach after changing the appearance of the first user selectable control, receiving additional user input confirming selection of the first user selectable control, wherein the transmitting, to the computing system, information indicating a location within the vehicle for placement of the one or more items in the online order is performed responsive to receiving the additional user input confirming selection of the first user selectable control.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed in dependent claim 3, are not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of Chopp, Siefken, Dulori, Katz, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
Chopp, Siefken, Dulori, and Katz, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Cited NPL (reference U cited 09/24/2026 in PTO-892) teaches curbside pickup at grocery stores, but does not teach or suggest the recited claims.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Zhao et al. (US 2022/0194435 A1) teaches providing an unmanned logistics vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
