DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims and response filed 19 August 2025.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 14, and 16-21 were canceled.
Claims 22 and 29-33 have been withdrawn due the restriction requirement.
Claims 22-33 have been newly added.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 15 and 23-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Examiner Comment
The amendments to claims 7-8 and 11 between the previously entered claim set (filed 7 February 2024) and the current claim set (filed 19 August 2025) have not been properly marked up. For example:
Regarding claim 7, the claim set filed 7 February 2024 recites “A system of claim 6, further comprising the blockchain process creates a persistent smart contract between a customer and a service provider for all order details.” The claim set filed 19 August 2025 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the machine learning video recording data is stored as a blockchain.”
Regarding claim 8, the claim set filed 7 February 2024 recites “A system of claim 1, further comprising the real time analytics includes time stamps of each event during the delivery process.” The claim set filed 19 August 2025 recites “The system of claim 1, further comprising the real time analytics that includes time stamps of each event during the delivery process.”
Regarding claim 11, the claim set filed 7 February 2024 recites “A system of claim 1, wherein the secure container comprises a container for end to end delivery of food accessible only by a recipient after delivery.” The claim set filed 19 August 2025 recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the re-usable container comprises a container for end to end delivery of food accessible only by a recipient after delivery.”
For examination purposes, the Examiner is examining the claim set filed 19 August 2025 as written.
Examiner further notes, several claim objections and 112 rejections have been made in this office action. Examiner has provided a markup of the suggested changes to claims 1 and 12 below for the Applicant’s convivence. These changes are only being suggested and have not been entered.
(Currently Amended) A system for e-blockchain enabled secure food delivery comprising:
one or more processors and one or more memory;
[A] a secure food delivery container with a blockchain enabled electronic lock;
[The] the secure food delivery container with multiple compartments,
food delivery container is a re-usable container;
the one or more processors are further configured to:
perform a food ordering process,[;] wherein the food ordering process includes a machine learning enabled video of [a] food preparation, the food preparation comprising, a machine learning enabled weighing, and packing of [the] food;
wherein the blockchain enabled electronic lock comprises a triple verification mechanism to unlock;
wherein the triple verification mechanism includes detection of a valid GPS delivery location, detection of a valid Wifi of the delivery location, and a dynamic decryption key sent to a customer;
wherein the re-usable container includes a network mechanism, and the network mechanism includes a long-range network capability;
wherein the long-range network comprises a low power, [a] low bit rate network and includes a location of the container;
wherein the re-usable container enables secure transport to the delivery
12. (Currently Amended) A method of blockchain enabled secure food delivery comprising:
[A]a secure food delivery container with a blockchain enabled electronic lock;
the secure food delivery container with multiple compartments,
wherein the secure delivery container is a re-usable container;
wherein the method is performed by one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to:
perform a food ordering process[;], wherein the food ordering process includes a machine learning enabled video of [a] food preparation, the food preparation comprising, a machine learning enabled weighing, and packing of [the] food;
wherein the blockchain enabled electronic lock comprises a triple verification mechanism to unlock;
wherein the triple verification mechanism includes detection of a valid GPS delivery location, detection of a valid Wifi of the delivery location, and a dynamic decryption key sent to a customer;
wherein the re-usable container includes a network mechanism;
wherein the network mechanism includes a long-range network capability;
wherein the long-range network comprises a low power, [a] low bit rate network and includes a location of the container;
wherein the re-usable container enables secure transport to the delivery
Restriction by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claims 22, 29-33 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 15 and 23-28, drawn to a system and method for blockchain enabled secure food delivery, classified in G06Q10/0833 (Tracking).
II. Claims 22 and 29-33, drawn to a blockchain enabled secure food delivery device, classified in B65D25/04.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because invention I requires a triple verification mechanism using GPS, Wifi, and a dynamic decryption key. The subcombination (invention II) has separate utility such as connection to a cloud data center or offline operation of carrying food.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
The limitations described above are separately classified and would require a different field of search due to their divergent subject matter.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22, 29-33 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 15 and 23-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 recites “One”. This appears to be a typographical error of “one”.
Claim 1, line 6 recites “A”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a”.
Claim 1, line 7 recites “The”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the”.
Claim 1, line 7 recites “compartments with each”. This appears to be a typographical error of “compartments, each”.
Claim 1, line 9 recites “Wherein”. This appears to be a typographical error of “wherein”.
Claim 1, line 9 recites “the secure delivery container”. This appears to be typographical error of “the secure food delivery container”.
Claim 1, lines 20-21 recites “a food preparation”. This appears to be a typographical error of “food preparation”.
Claim 1, line 21 recites “weighting”. This appears to be a typographical error of “weighing”.
Claim 1, line 22 recites “the food”. This appears to be a typographical error of “food”.
Claim 1, line 23 recites “the electronic lock”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the blockchain enabled electronic lock”.
Claim 1, line 24 recites “the triple verification”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the triple verification mechanism”.
Claim 1, line 24 recites “of valid GPS delivery location”. This appears to be a typographical error of “of a valid GPS delivery location.
Claim 1, line 25 recites “of valid Wifi of delivery location”. This appears to be a typographical error of “of a valid Wifi of the delivery location”.
Claim 1, line 25 recites “dynamic decryption”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a dynamic decryption”.
Claim 1, line 29 recites “comprising”. This appears to be a typographical error of “comprises”.
Claim 1, line 29 recites “a low power, a low bit rate network”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a low power, low bit rate network”.
Claim 1, line 30 recites “location of the container”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a location of the container”.
Claim 1 lines 31-32 recites “the customer location”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the delivery location”.
Claims 4, 7-8, 11, and 23-24 are dependent on claim 1. Claims 4, 7-8, 11, and 23-24 have been objected to for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “a real”. This appears to be a typographical error of “real”.
Claim 7 recites “stored as”. This appears to be a typographical error of “stored in”.
Claim 8 recites “includes”. This appears to be a typographical error of “include”.
Claim 12 is parallel in nature to claim 1 and has been objected to for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 13, 15, 25-28 are dependent on claim 12. Therefore claims 13, 15, 25-28 have been objected to for the same reasons as claim 12.
Claim 13 recites “comprising”. This appears to be a typographical error of “comprises”.
Claim 15 recites “an artificial intelligence and a machine learning that collects statistics and creates insights that detects and alerts on quality patterns associated with the food ordering and delivery process.” This appears to be a typographical error of “using artificial intelligence and machine learning to collect statistics and create insights that detect and alert on quality patterns associated with the food ordering and delivery process.”
Claim 23 recites “comprising”. This appears to be a typographical error of “comprises”.
Claim 24 recites “artificial intelligence defined by machine learning that collects statistics and creates insights that detect and alert on quality patterns associated with the food ordering and delivery processes.” This appears to be a typographical error of “artificial intelligence defined by machine learning that collects statistics and creates insights that detect and alert on quality patterns associated with the food ordering and delivery processes.”
Claim 25 recites “includes”. This appears to be a typographical error of “include”.
Claim 26 recites “includes”. This appears to be a typographical error of “include”.
Claim 27 recites “stored as”. This appears to be a typographical error of “stored in”.
Claim 28 recites “container, that enables end-to-end delivery of food accessible”. This appears to be a typographical error of “container, that enables end-to-end delivery of food, is accessible”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a triple verification mechanism to unlock” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 15 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 18-20 recites “further comprises: a food ordering process; wherein the food ordering process…”. Furthermore, claim 1 recites a plurality of system components such as “one or more processors” and “one or more memory”. However, the claimed food ordering process is not tied to any of the system components, making the metes and bounds of the claim to be unclear because it is unclear if the system components (i.e., the one or more processors and/or the one or more memory) are being used for the food ordering process (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). The Examiner recommends redrafting the claims so that they describe the capabilities of the system rather than associated actions. Examiner further notes amendment to the claims should clearly distinct processor/memory of the container from other processor/memory outside the container as they’re clearly different devices.
For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the claim to recite:
the one or more processors are further configured to:
perform a food ordering process,[;] wherein the food ordering process includes a machine learning enabled video of [a] food preparation, the food preparation comprising, a machine learning enabled weighing, and packing of [the] food;
Claims 4, 7-8, 11, and 23-24 inherent the deficiencies of claim 1. Therefore, claims 4, 7-8, 11, and 23-24 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 12, 13, 15, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the structure of the claims, as written, makes the claims unclear. The claims merely recite a method of [using a] blockchain enabled secure food delivery without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (see MPEP 2173.05(q)). The food ordering process does not seem to fall within the container based on the current formatting, so it is unclear if the process if being performed by the container or something else. Examiner suggests redrafting the claims so that they recite steps that are being performed by the method rather than components of a system that is being used by the method. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite:
wherein the method is performed by one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to:
perform a food ordering process[;], wherein the food ordering process includes a machine learning enabled video of [a] food preparation, the food preparation comprising, a machine learning enabled weighing, and packing of [the] food;
Claim limitation “a triple verification mechanism to unlock” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0036] of the instant specification recites “The electronic lock uses a triple verification method before it can be unlocked”, but does not mention a triple verification mechanism for unlocking. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 15 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11, and 23-24 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 12-13, 15, and 15-28 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process). As such, claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11-13, 15 and 23-28 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
perform a food ordering process, wherein the food ordering process includes food preparation, the food preparation comprising, weighing, bagging, and packing of food;
a triple verification mechanism to unlock;
wherein the triple verification mechanism includes detection of a valid delivery location, and a key sent to a customer;
a location of the container;
enabling secure transport to the delivery location.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses food delivery. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing the personal interactions between people, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 includes the following additional element(s): one or more processors and one or more memory; a secure food delivery container with a blockchain enabled electronic lock; the secure food delivery container with multiple compartments, with each compartment with their own sensors and climate controllers; wherein the secure food delivery container is a re-usable container; a machine learning enabled video of food preparation; a machine learning; GPS; detection of a valid Wifi of the delivery location; a dynamic decryption key; wherein the re-usable container includes a network mechanism, and the network mechanism includes a long-range network capability; wherein the long-range network comprises a low power, low bit rate network. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., decryption) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 4, 8, 11, and 23 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 4, 8, 11, and 23 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 7 and 24 further include(s) the additional element(s): machine learning video recording data (claim 7), blockchain (claim 7), an artificial intelligence defined by machine learning (claim 24). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 7 and 24 is/are ineligible.
Claim 12 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 12 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 12 recites the following additional elements: one or more processors and one or more memory; a secure food delivery container with a blockchain enabled electronic lock; the secure food delivery container with multiple compartments, with each compartment with their own sensors and climate controllers; wherein the secure food delivery container is a re-usable container; a machine learning enabled video of food preparation; a machine learning; GPS; detection of a valid Wifi of the delivery location; a dynamic decryption key; wherein the re-usable container includes a network mechanism, and the network mechanism includes a long-range network capability; wherein the long-range network comprises a low power, low bit rate network. These additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 13, 25-26, and 28 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 13, 25-26, and 28 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 27 and 15 further include(s) the additional element(s): machine learning video recording data (claim 27), blockchain (claim 27), artificial intelligence and machine learning (claim 15). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 15 and 27 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11-13, 15, 23-24, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashi (US 20210074100 A1) in view of Mossier (US 20220020471 A1) in further view of Koutenaei (US 20160269403 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kashi teaches a system for e-blockchain enabled secure food delivery comprising:
one or more processors and one or more memory; (Paragraph [0021] “memory 108, processor 114”)
a secure (Paragraph [0038] “the blockchain can facilitate management of security and access to resources (e.g., smart locker compartment access”)
the secure (Paragraph [0024] “second device 126 can comprise storage compartments that are configured to store various items via controlled temperature settings”; Paragraph [0049] “second unlocking component 230 can facilitate the execution of other operations of second device 126 such as adjustment of a temperature within the compartment environment”)
wherein the secure (Paragraph [0024] describes a locker device with multiple compartments that can be assigned to different users and can be unlocked and locked. Since the lockers can be locked, unlocked, assigned to different users, and is not destroyed after use, the lockers are reusable.)
the one or more processors (Paragraph [0021] “processor 114”) are further configured to:
wherein the re-usable container includes a network mechanism, and the network mechanism includes a long-range network capability; (Paragraph [0085] “The components can communicate […] across a network such as the Internet with other systems via the signal”)
wherein the long-range network comprises a low power, low bit rate network and includes a location of the container; (Paragraph [0058] “The BLE technology can be emitted by second device 126 and the other smart locker devices, where it is detected (e.g., using detection component 110) by first device 122 (e.g., smart phone, etc.) and other client devices based on execution of a micro-location technology such as GPS technology in connection with BLE”)
wherein the re-usable container enables secure transport to the delivery location. (Paragraph [0028] “second device 126 can be one or more non-limiting embodiments of a smart locker or smart mailbox device that […] facilitates secure storage, delivery, and/or retrieval of items (e.g., packages, mail, articles, etc.).”)
Kashi does not teach:
the delivery/ordered/prepped item being food;
perform a food ordering process, wherein the food ordering process includes a machine learning enabled video of food preparation, the food preparation comprising, a machine learning enabled weighing, bagging, and packing of food;
However, Mossier teaches:
the delivery/ordered/prepped item being food; (Paragraph [0029] “monitoring delivery of meals to a patient described herein may be deployed within a facility where the preparation of the food is done by manual means, with the system ensuring that the correct patient receives the correct food serving.”)
perform a food ordering process, wherein the food ordering process includes a machine learning enabled video of food preparation, the food preparation comprising, a machine learning enabled weighing, bagging, and packing of food. (Paragraph [0034] “the inspection and analysis unit includes computer vision technology and is configured to operate using machine learning techniques to analyse image data captured by one or more cameras of the computer vision apparatus.”; Paragraph [0054] “During […] the food preparation in the preparation unit, different characteristics or metrics of the prepared food may be recorded and transmitted to the inspection and analysis unit […] hence determining the weight of the corresponding components or ingredients.”; Paragraph [0032] “The plate of food may be delivered on a tray or other serving support on which other items may be placed”)
These operations of Mossier is applicable to the system of Kashi as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to making deliveries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kashi to deliver food and perform a food ordering process as taught by Mossier. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kashi in order to optimize the food preparation process (see Abstract of Mossier).
Kashi in view of Mossier does not teach:
wherein the blockchain enabled electronic lock comprises a triple verification mechanism to unlock;
wherein the triple verification mechanism includes detection of a valid GPS delivery location, detection of a valid Wifi of the delivery location, and a dynamic decryption key sent to a customer.
However, Koutenaei teaches:
wherein the electronic lock comprises a triple verification mechanism to unlock; wherein the triple verification mechanism includes detection of a valid GPS delivery location, detection of a valid Wifi of the delivery location, and a dynamic decryption key sent to a customer; (Paragraph [0050] “ Using the Location and Time Based One Time Password (LTOTP) […] process 300 compares the location information (which may include GPS information, WiFi information, cell tower information, radio signal signature, and a like) of the authentication device 20 and the browsing device 10 (which may include IP address, and the like). If these two sets of information do not match, it may indicate unusual activity.” Paragraph [0045] “At 319, the authentication server 30 receives both encrypted messages. The authentication server 30 first checks the challenge signed by the authentication device using its public key, and then the authentications server 30 decrypts both encrypted messages. At 321, the authentication server 30 determines if the received LTOTP is correct.”))
This operation of Koutenaei is applicable to the system of Kashi as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to secure delivery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the blockchain enabled lock of Kashi to incorporate the triple verification mechanism as taught by Koutenaei. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kashi in order to provide the desired level of security (see paragraph [0022] of Koutenaei).
Regarding claim 11, Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei teaches the system of claim 1. Kashi further teaches:
wherein the re-usable container comprises a container for end to end delivery of food accessible only by a recipient after delivery. (Paragraph [0042] “device owned by a package delivery company may have restricted access to a storage locker (e.g., can only unlock the compartment once to drop off the package) versus a first device 122 whom owns the package may have full access to open the compartment until the package is removed.”)
Claim 12:
Claim(s) 12 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 12 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1, which are directed towards a system. Claim(s) 12 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1, respectively.
Regarding claim 13, Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei teaches the method of claim 12. Kashi does not teach:
wherein the food ordering process further comprises quantity and ingredients of the order.
However, Mossier teaches:
wherein the food ordering process further comprises quantity and ingredients of the order. (Paragraph [0044] “The workstation then provides the amounts of each ingredient of meals on a patient to patient basis.” Of Mossier)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Kashi is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei teaches the method of claim 12. Kashi does not teach:
using artificial intelligence and machine learning to collect statistics and create insights that detect and alert on quality patterns associated with the food ordering and delivery process.
However, Mossier teaches:
using artificial intelligence and machine learning to collect statistics and create insights that detect and alert on quality patterns associated with the food ordering and delivery process. (Paragraph [0063] “analysis of the data may be performed at the inspection and analysis unit by the machine learning processor mentioned above (128)”; Paragraph [0049] “the inspection and analysis unit may further comprise a temperature measurement unit to monitor the temperature of the food upon delivery and/or upon collection […] Temperature of the food may be used as an indication contributing to the perceived quality of the food.”; Paragraph [0045] “The inspection and analysis unit may also be configured to provide an alert should the meal not correspond to the planned meal preparation for the particular consumer”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Kashi is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 23, Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei teaches the system of claim 1. Kashi does not teach:
wherein the food ordering process further comprises quantity and ingredients of the order.
However, Mossier teaches:
wherein the food ordering process further comprises quantity and ingredients of the order. (Paragraph [0044] “The workstation then provides the amounts of each ingredient of meals on a patient to patient basis.” Of Mossier)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Kashi is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Kashi in view of Mossier, in further view of Koutenaei teaches the system of claim 1.
Kashi does not teach:
using artificial intelligence and machine learning to collect statistics and create insights that detect and alert on quality patterns associated with the food ordering and delivery process.
However, Mossier teaches:
using artificial intelligence and machine learning to collect statistics and create insights that detect and alert on quality patterns associated with the food ordering and delivery process. (Paragraph [0063] “analysis of the data may be performed at the inspection and analysis unit by the machine learning processor mentioned above (128)”; Paragraph [0049] “the inspection and analysis unit may further comprise a temperature measurement unit to monitor the temperature of the food upon delivery and/or upon collection […] Temperature of the food may be used as an indication contributing to the perceived quality of the food.”; Paragraph [0045] “The inspection and analysis unit may also be configured to provide an alert should the meal not correspond to the planned meal preparation for the particular consumer”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Kashi is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei teaches the method of claim 12. Kashi further teaches:
wherein the re-usable container comprises a container for end to end delivery of food accessible only by a recipient after delivery. (Paragraph [0042] “device owned by a package delivery company may have restricted access to a storage locker (e.g., can only unlock the compartment once to drop off the package) versus a first device 122 whom owns the package may have full access to open the compartment until the package is removed.”)
Claim(s) 4 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashi (US 20210074100 A1) in view of Mossier (US 20220020471 A1) in further view of Koutenaei (US 20160269403 A1) in further of Elliot (US 20170011319 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei teaches the system of claim 1.
Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei does not teach:
real time analytics that includes video and photos of the food delivery process.
However, Elliot teaches:
real time analytics that includes video and photos of the food delivery process. (Paragraph [0147] “devices allowing monitoring of the progress of an order fulfilment. In addition, the status of any existing queues can be monitored, preferably in real time. In one particular form, the data acquisition device can be in the form of a video camera 126 which feeds substantially real time video data”; Paragraph [0004] “delivery of fast food” of Elliot)
This operation of Elliot is applicable to the system of Kashi as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Kashi to incorporate real time analytics with video and photos of the food delivery process as taught by Elliot. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kashi in order to pre-emptively managing resources for the fulfilment of the orders (see paragraph [0001] of Elliot).
Regarding claim 26, Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei teaches the method of claim 12. Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei does not teach:
real time analytics that includes video and photos of the food delivery process.
However, Elliot teaches:
real time analytics that includes video and photos of the food delivery process. (Paragraph [0147] “devices allowing monitoring of the progress of an order fulfilment. In addition, the status of any existing queues can be monitored, preferably in real time. In one particular form, the data acquisition device can be in the form of a video camera 126 which feeds substantially real time video data”; Paragraph [0004] “delivery of fast food” of Elliot)
This step of Elliot is applicable to the method of Kashi as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kashi to incorporate real time analytics with video and photos of the food delivery process as taught by Elliot. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kashi in order to pre-emptively managing resources for the fulfilment of the orders (see paragraph [0001] of Elliot).
Claim(s) 7 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashi (US 20210074100 A1) in view of Mossier (US 20220020471 A1) in further view of Koutenaei (US 20160269403 A1) in further of Bryden (US 20190303670 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei teaches the system of claim 1. Kashi in view of Mossier in further view of Koutenaei does not teach:
wherein the machine learning video recording data is stored as a blockchain.
However, Bryden teaches:
wherein the machine learning video recording data is stored in a blockchain. (Paragraph [0044] “the system 10 is configured such that various machine learning and/or artificial intelligence (“AI”) techniques use AR and computer vision data 24 from the previously taken photos or video stored (such as in the blockchain 24B)” of Bryden)
This operation of Bryden is applicable to the system of Kashi as they both share