Patent decision
- BL number
- O/087/19
- Concerning rights in
- GB1620396.0
- Hearing Officer
- Mrs C L Davies
- Decision date
- 14 February 2019
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Walmart Apollo, LLC
- Provisions discussed
- PA 1977 Section 1(2)(c)
- Keywords
- Excluded fields (refused)
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The invention relates to a method and system to support order collection using a geo-fence. The electronic device places an order for goods through the computer network and selects an intended collection location and time where and when the goods may be picked up. The device forms a geo-fence around or near the collection location, and monitors the geo-fence. The geo-fence is created but is left initially in a dormant state, for example, inactivated. The customer device is configured to set or generate a wake up alarm. The wake up alarm is configured to activate relevant geo-fence functions on the customer device at a pre-determined period prior to the indicated pick up time. When activated the geo-fence is triggered when the device is proximate to the collection location, and the device then generates a trigger message. The computer network stores the order in a database, and in response to receiving the trigger message, generates a pre-alert message. An in-store device, in response to receiving the pre-alert message and the order details, displays the order details or otherwise outputs a pre-alert notification. This method allows a store or shop employee to ready the order as the customer approaches the collection location but before the customer arrives. This is aimed to reduce any delay to the customer. Further actively monitoring a geo-fence may cause a relatively high workload within the customer device and in consequence may drain battery life significantly. Therefore, minimizing the period when the geo-fence is active helps to preserve battery life within the customer device.
On applying the Aerotel/Macrossan test, the Hearing Officer found that the invention claimed was excluded as a computer program as such and a business method as such. The application was refused under section 18(3).
Full decision O/087/19 
340Kb
