DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed 07/13/2026.
Claims 1-13 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 14-17 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/US2021/054653 filed 10/13/2021, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 14-17 have been indicated as “Cancelled” but continue to recite a limitation “displaying the error message in the phone application using the user device.” Examiner recommends deleting the entire limitation since claims 14-17 are indicated as cancelled claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 1, 13-14, and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 1, 13-14, and 18 have been withdrawn. However, some remaining and additional antecedent basis issues need to be addressed as shown below in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of remarks filed 07/13/2026 that the claims are not directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims are directed to a specific technological process for controlling access to a physical device rather than merely authorizing a transaction, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The claims are directed towards certain methods or organizing human activity such as sales activities and commercial interactions because the claimed invention describes buying and delivering restricted products after certain conditions are met such as checking inventory, identity verification of the buyer, location of the buyer, checking buyer’s eligibility to buy the restricted product, payment authorization. Once the conditions are met, a delivery command to provide physical access to the product is received in order to deliver the product to the buyer.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11 of remarks filed 07/13/2026 that the claims are integrated into a practical application and recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the claims improve security on unmanned delivery systems by using identity verification, physical presence verification, eligibility verification, and payment authorization to control delivery command and operation of the restriction mechanism to prevent the buyer from accessing the restricted product until the conditions are met, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how preventing delivery of a restricted product until certain conditions are met improves technology. Preventing delivery of a restricted product until certain conditions may improve the commercial problem related to delivering restricted products, but it is unclear how exactly technology is improved. The claims merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application and are not significant more than the judicial exception because the claims do not improve existing technology by using the computer to implement the abstract idea.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on page 11-12 of remarks filed 07/13/2026 that Morales does not teach the claims because Morales separately performs identity verification and proximity communication whereas the amended claims require considerably more, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claims require considerably more and the identity verification does not occur separately from the proximity determination) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the claims recite the identity verification as a separate step than the proximity determination of the user because the claims actually label the identity verification step as (i) and the proximity determination step as (ii). The claims do not require the identity verification step to be the same step as the proximity determination step. It is also unclear what “the claim requiring considerably more” means.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on page 12-14 of remarks filed 07/13/2026 that Morales does not teach the claims because Morales does not teach the delivery command is generated only after confirmation that previously verified user is physically present, the individual physically present at the vending machine is the same individual whose identity was previously verified, and preventing physical access to the restricted product until delivery command is generated, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Morales teaches that the delivery command is generated only after confirmation that previously verified user is physically present and the individual physically present at the vending machine is the same individual whose identity was previously verified because as show in FIG 10, the buyer’s identification is checked and only when the buyer is near the vending machine, only then does the vending machine deliver the product. Morales teaches preventing physical access to the restricted product until delivery command is generated because the application sends requests to the centralized server to identify the buyer, authorize the sale, and collect the funds, and once the buyer is in close enough proximity to the vending machine and once authorized, the vending machine is instructed to vend the product. The vending machine is not instructed to vend the product unless the buyer’s balance is sufficient, the buyer’s identity is verified, and the buyer is in close proximity to the vending machine. (Morales, [0129]; [0130]; [0010]; [0011]; [0109]; FIG. 9, [0157]; [0020]; [0148]; [0174]).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on page 14-19 of remarks filed 07/13/2026 that dependent claims are not anticipated by prior art because Morales does not teach independent claims, Morales and Schaufele fail to teach independent claim 1, and there is no motivation to combine Morales and Schaufele to teach independent claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Schaufele is not relied upon to teach the claim amendments in the independent claims. Therefore, no motivation exists to combine Morales and Schaufele to teach the independent claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-13 and 18-20 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in:
Claim 1 recites:
the selected product;
Claim 2 recites:
the restricted products;
Claim 11 recites:
the at least one selected products;
Claim 15 recites:
the biometric information;
Claim 18 recites:
the at least one selected product;
Claims 1 and 18 recite:
the user’s identity;
(i) the identity of the user has been verified based on the verification determination;(ii) the verified user
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to a system and claims 18-20 are directed method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention(process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, recites the abstract idea of:
receive information from a user;
…prevent access to at least one restricted product until a delivery command is received;
...to determine an inventory of the delivery unit and communicates the inventory
… receives a user input …of at least one selected product from the inventory, wherein …communicates the at least one selected product and a user identifier
…calculates a location determination of whether …is within a predefined geographic range of the delivery unit,
wherein …calculates a verification determination of the user's identity based on the user identifier and at least one pre-registered user characteristic,
wherein … calculates an eligibility determination of whether the user is eligible to purchase the selected product based on at least one characteristic of the at least one selected product and the user identifier,
wherein …calculates a payment determination of whether the user has a sufficient amount of funds to pay for the at least one selected product,
wherein …generates and transmits the delivery command…only after determining that: (i) the identity of the user has been verified based on the verification determination (ii) the verified user is physically present within the predefined geographic range of the delivery unit based on the location determination; (iii) the verified user is eligible to purchase the at least one selected product based on the eligibility determination; and (iv) payment for the at least one selected product has been authorized based on the payment determination; wherein the restriction mechanism prevents physical access to the at least one selected product until …receives the delivery command …; and wherein, upon receipt of the delivery command, …actuates the restriction mechanism to provide physical access to the at least one selected product.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interaction such as buying a selected restricted product based on checking inventory, receiving product selection, determining location, verifying user’s identity, determining user’s eligibility to purchase the product, determining whether the user has enough funds to purchase the product, and sending a command to deliver the product. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A delivery system for restricted products, comprising: a user device, the user device including an input device and a user communication module, the input device configured to…; a delivery unit, the delivery unit containing at least one restricted product, the delivery unit including a restriction mechanism and a delivery communication module, the restriction mechanism configured to…; and an external server, the external server including a server communication module, the external server being communicatively coupled to the user device and the delivery unit, wherein the external server communicates with the delivery unit; … to the user device, wherein the user device ... via the input device;… the user device…; …to the external server, wherein the external server…; … the user device …;… the external server …; …the external server…;.. the external server…;…the external server …to the delivery unit …the delivery unit …from the external server; and …, the delivery unit actuates the restriction mechanism…(Claim 1);
the delivery unit is a vending machine (Claim 3);
the user device and the external server are integrated into one component (Claim 4);
wherein the user device… to the external server, wherein the delivery unit communicates … to the external server, and wherein the external server ... (Claim 7 );
…the external server …on a communication network, wherein the user device and the delivery unit are both communicating on the communication network (Claim 8);
… to the external server, wherein the external server …(Claim 9);
…to the external server, wherein the external server… (Claim 10);
the delivery unit … (Claim 11);
… the external server … the external server sends …to the delivery unit …(Claim 13);
A method of purchasing a restricted product from a delivery system for restricted products, the method comprising:…, at an external server, … from a delivery unit, wherein the delivery unit contains at least one restricted product, wherein the delivery unit includes a restriction mechanism, wherein the restriction mechanism is configured to…, at a user device, …from the external server; displaying, at the user device, the inventory from the external server; …, at the user device, …; …, from the user device, …to the external server; …., by the external server, …; …, by the external server, …; …, by the external server, …; …, by the external server, …;…, by the external server, …to the delivery unit …by the delivery unit; and …, by the delivery unit, …(Claim 18);
… the external server…(Claim 19);
…, by the delivery unit,…(Claim 20).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A delivery system for restricted products, comprising: a user device, the user device including an input device and a user communication module, the input device configured to…; a delivery unit, the delivery unit containing at least one restricted product, the delivery unit including a restriction mechanism and a delivery communication module, the restriction mechanism configured to…; and an external server, the external server including a server communication module, the external server being communicatively coupled to the user device and the delivery unit, wherein the external server communicates with the delivery unit; … to the user device, wherein the user device ... via the input device;… the user device…; …to the external server, wherein the external server…; … the user device …;… the external server …; …the external server…;.. the external server…;…the external server …to the delivery unit …the delivery unit …from the external server; and …, the delivery unit actuates the restriction mechanism…(Claim 1);
the delivery unit is a vending machine (Claim 3);
the user device and the external server are integrated into one component (Claim 4);
wherein the user device… to the external server, wherein the delivery unit communicates … to the external server, and wherein the external server ... (Claim 7 );
…the external server …on a communication network, wherein the user device and the delivery unit are both communicating on the communication network (Claim 8);
… to the external server, wherein the external server …(Claim 9);
…to the external server, wherein the external server… (Claim 10);
the delivery unit … (Claim 11);
… the external server … the external server sends …to the delivery unit …(Claim 13);
A method of purchasing a restricted product from a delivery system for restricted products, the method comprising:…, at an external server, … from a delivery unit, wherein the delivery unit contains at least one restricted product, wherein the delivery unit includes a restriction mechanism, wherein the restriction mechanism is configured to…, at a user device, …from the external server; displaying, at the user device, the inventory from the external server; …, at the user device, …; …, from the user device, …to the external server; …., by the external server, …; …, by the external server, …; …, by the external server, …; …, by the external server, …;…, by the external server, …to the delivery unit …by the delivery unit; and …, by the delivery unit, …(Claim 18);
… the external server…(Claim 19);
…, by the delivery unit,…(Claim 20).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morales (US Pub. No. 20180121912 A1, hereinafter “Morales”).
Regarding claims 1 and 18
Morales discloses a delivery system for restricted products, comprising:
a user device, the user device including an input device and a user communication module, the input device configured to receive information from a user; a delivery unit, the delivery unit containing at least one restricted product, the delivery unit including a restriction mechanism and a delivery communication module, the restriction mechanism configured to prevent access to the at least one restricted product until a delivery command is received; and an external server, the external server including a server communication module, the external server being communicatively coupled to the user device and the delivery unit (Morales, [0081] VM=Vending Machine; [0055] Mobile device=SCP; [0109]: VM dispenses law-restricted products; FIG. 0, [0147]: system including buyer using device selects and clicks VM and product to purchase and sends payment to seller device and buyer device in communication with VM to send purchase request for product; Fig. 1, [0148]: device retrieves from cloud; [0152]: VM only dispenses law-restricted product upon buyer verification and entering the correct Pin; [0108]: device display screen to receive selections; [0011]: server),
wherein the external server communicates with the delivery unit to determine an inventory of the delivery unit and communicates the inventory to the user device, wherein the user device receives a user input via the input device of at least one selected product from the inventory, wherein the user device communicates the at least one selected product and a user identifier to the external server, wherein the external server calculates a location determination of whether the user device is within a predefined geographic range of the delivery unit (Morales, [0107]: cloud keeps real-time VM inventory based on subtracting how many products buyer purchased and device retrieves the inventory amount from cloud; [0108]: send product availability to buyer device display screen and buyer selects to purchase from VM located nearest to buyer device GPS location retrieved from cloud; [0147]: A buyer using Google Maps App running inside a device searches for vending machines nearby, selects the desired one and clicks on it, to find its location; [0109]: buyer device provide user identification to purchase product from VM; [0149]: retrieve inventory from the cloud of that VM; [0081] VM=Vending Machine; [0055] Mobile device=SCP;[0037]: CS=cloud; [0011]: server),
wherein the external server calculates a verification determination of the user's identity based on the user identifier and at least one pre-registered user characteristic, wherein the external server calculates an eligibility determination of whether the user is eligible to purchase the selected product based on at least one characteristic of the at least one selected product and the user identifier (Morales, [0109]: buyer device must validate their face with information (e.g. driver license picture and pin) stored on cloud before buyer device can instruct VM to dispense law-restricted product; [0124] FIG. 4 A diagram to affirm a picture with the buyer's driver license; [0020]: cloud folder contains buyer data such as PIN; [0023]: buyer data includes driver’s license photo; [0011]: server),
wherein the external server calculates a payment determination of whether the user has a sufficient amount of funds to pay for the at least one selected product (Morales, FIG. 9, [0157]: determine from cloud whether buyer has minimum balance to purchase produces from VM; [0020] cloud folder contains Buyer's Balance; [0148]: to purchase a product, buyer device reads all the balances stored in cloud. If there is enough balance, in more than one account the buyer device asks the buyer to select the account, then extracts the price amount from that balance and generates a transaction record),
wherein the external server generates and transmits the delivery command to the delivery unit only after determining that:(i) the identity of the user has been verified based on the verification determination (ii) the verified user is physically present within the predefined geographic range of the delivery unit based on the location determination;(iii) the verified user is eligible to purchase the at least one selected product based on the eligibility determination; and (iv) payment for the at least one selected product has been authorized based on the payment determination; wherein the restriction mechanism prevents physical access to the at least one selected product until the delivery unit receives the delivery command from the external server; and wherein, upon receipt of the delivery command, the delivery unit actuates the restriction mechanism to provide physical access to the at least one selected product (Morales, [0129] FIG. 9, The buyer's App flow diagram performs payment determination by checking buyer’s balance, and if buyer has minimum balance then verify GPS buyer’s location by checking buyer’s GPS location against VM to check that buyer is in front of VM and then the steps continue in FIG. 10; [0130] FIG. 10 The buyer's App flow diagram, continued after FIG. 9 to verify user’s identity by checking buyer’s age and picture and that buyer is near VM, then VM confirms that product is delivered; [0011]: The application sends requests to the centralized server (via 3G/Wi-Fi) to identify the buyer, authorize the sale, and collect the funds. Once authorized, the smartphone app instructs the BLE device in the VM to vend the product; [0010]: once a consumer is in close enough proximity to a BLE enabled VM, the application will activate and connect to the VM over the BLE wireless protocol; [0109]: the buyer validates identity before the buyer's SCP can instruct the VM to dispense the law-restricted product; FIG. 9, [0157]: determine from cloud whether buyer has minimum balance to purchase produces from VM; [0020] cloud folder contains Buyer's Balance; [0148]: after check balance from buyer’s account and buyer locating VM and buyer acceptance, VM dispenses product; [0174]: App running on device generates the command when the buyers push a button to instruct the VM to deliver the purchased goods one by one or transfer the total amount paid allowing the buyer to take the goods one by one)).
Regarding claim 18
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected under similar grounds as claim 1. Additionally, Claim 18 recites: displaying, at the user device, the inventory from the external server (Morales, [0037]; [0011]; [0107]; [0108]).
Regarding claim 2
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, wherein the restricted products include at least one of a restricted good and a restricted service (Morales, [0109]: VM dispenses law-restricted products; [0108]: product and/or service).
Regarding claim 3
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, wherein the delivery unit is a vending machine (Morales, [0081] VM=Vending Machine; [0109]: VM dispenses product).
Regarding claim 5
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, wherein the user identifier includes a biometric information (Morales, [0109]: a facial picture for validation).
Regarding claim 7
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, wherein the user device communicates a user device location to the external server, wherein the delivery unit communicates a delivery unit location to the external server, and wherein the external server calculates the location determination based on the user device location and the delivery unit location (Morales, [0108]: determine VM located nearest to buyer device GPS location to VM location retrieved from cloud; [0147]: A buyer using Google Maps App running inside a device searches for vending machines nearby, selects the desired one and clicks on it, to find its location; [0148]: device uses its GPS location; [0081] VM=Vending Machine; [0055] Mobile device=SCP;[0037]: CS=cloud; [0011]: app sends request to server).
Regarding claim 8
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, wherein the external server calculates the location determination based on a communication network, wherein the user device and the delivery unit are both communicating on the communication network (Morales, [0048]: GPS satellites provides location and time information; [0082]: GPS precise location of the VM; [0171]: Buyers using SCP 108 running that App download VM(X) folder 105 using the buyer's GPS location as index (x); [0108]: determine VM located nearest to buyer device GPS location to VM location retrieved from cloud; [0147]: A buyer using Google Maps App running inside a device searches for vending machines nearby, selects the desired one and clicks on it, to find its location; [0148]: device uses its GPS location; [0081] VM=Vending Machine; [0055] Mobile device=SCP;[0037]: CS=cloud; [0011]: app sends request to server) .
Regarding claim 9
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, comprising: an identification database, the identification database communicatively coupled to the external server, wherein the external server calculates the verification determination by communicating with the identification database (Morales, [0109]: buyer device must validate their face with information (e.g. driver license picture and pin) obtained from folders stored on cloud before buyer device can instruct VM to dispense law-restricted product; [0124] FIG. 4 A diagram to affirm a picture with the buyer's driver license; [0020]: cloud folder contains buyer data such as PIN; [0037]: cloud contains folders for buyers[0023]: buyer data includes driver’s license photo; [0011]: server).
Regarding claim 10
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, comprising: a restriction database, the restriction database communicatively coupled to the external server, wherein the external server calculates the eligibility determination by communicating with the identification database (Morales, [0152]: affirm the buyer's age before allowing a VM to dispense a law-restricted product; [0086] VMs' products File could contain: [0087]: restrictions (sales restrictions by age, and/or agenda), verification procedures and type; [0167]: App should access the two folders to read and write information related to age verification; [0168]: information from folders stored on cloud used by App; [0020]: cloud folder contains buyer data; [0028]: buyer data includes File for Proving Age: [0081] VM=Vending Machine and hardware device; [0082] VM(X)=Vending Machine Folder; [0011]: server).
Regarding claim 11
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, wherein the delivery unit appends a label to at least one of the at least one selected products after receiving the delivery command and before providing access to the at least one selected product (Morales, [0013]: after buyer transmits message to vending machine to deliver product and prior to actually delivering the product, vending machine replies to buyer’s message with product information (e.g. temperature) and once buyer accepts the information provided by vending machine, then the product is delivered; [0148]: When the buyer locates the VM 104, the SCP 108 transmits a radio frequency message 109 asking the VM for the temperature of the product, and receives an answer back from the VM 104 through the RF signal 110. If the buyer accepts it by a click on the SCP screen, the VM 104 dispenses the product).
Regarding claim 12
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 11, wherein the label includes at least one of an access date, an access time, and an access location (Morales, [0085]: physical address of VM, last temperature reported, date of the last temperature reported; [0148]: When the buyer locates the VM 104, product temperature based on location of VM is provided).
Regarding claim 19
Morales discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the external server calculates the eligibility determination by communicating with a restriction database (Morales, [0152]: affirm the buyer's age before allowing a VM to dispense a law-restricted product; [0086] VMs' products File could contain: [0087]: restrictions (sales restrictions by age, and/or agenda), verification procedures and type; [0167]: App should access the two folders to read and write information related to age verification; [0168]: information from folders stored on cloud used by App; [0020]: cloud folder contains buyer data; [0028]: buyer data includes File for Proving Age: [0081] VM=Vending Machine and hardware device; [0082] VM(X)=Vending Machine Folder; [0011]: server).
Regarding claim 20
Morales discloses the method of claim 18, comprising: appending, by the delivery unit, a label to the selection after receiving the delivery command but before providing access to the selection (Morales, [0013]: after buyer transmits message to vending machine to deliver product and prior to actually delivering the product, vending machine replies to buyer’s message with product information (e.g. temperature) and once buyer accepts the information provided by vending machine, then the product is delivered; [0148]: When the buyer locates the VM 104, the SCP 108 transmits a radio frequency message 109 asking the VM for the temperature of the product, and receives an answer back from the VM 104 through the RF signal 110. If the buyer accepts it by a click on the SCP screen, the VM 104 dispenses the product).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaufele et al. (US Pub. No. 20060206724 A1, hereinafter “Schaufele”).
Regarding claim 4
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, wherein the user device and the external server (Morales, [0011]: application sends requests to server and then instructs device; [0019] App=Software Application designed to run on an SCP; [0066] SCP=Smart Cellular Phone, Tablet, or any electronic device that is able to Communicate to the Cloud);
Morales does not teach:
…are integrated into one component (emphasis added).
However, Schaufele teaches:
…are integrated into one component (emphasis added) Schaufele, [0079]: server and devices; [0081]: both an application running on a server, the data within the application and the server can be considered a module or component).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the server and user device of Morales with being integrated into one component as taught by Schaufele because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Morales would continue to teach the server and user device except that now they are integrated into one component is taught according to the teachings of Schaufele in order to process and receive data. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Schaufele, [0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 6
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 5, wherein the biometric information includes at least one of a facial scan, (Morales, [0109]: a facial picture for validation).
Morales does not teach:
a fingerprint scan, a palm scan, a retina scan, and an at least one vocal characteristic.
However, Schaufele teaches:
a fingerprint scan, a palm scan, a retina scan, and an at least one vocal characteristic. (Schaufele, [0005]: biometric identification using scanner to identify fingerprints, hands, and retinal; [0006]: voice recognition to detect voice pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the face scan of Morales with additional biometric identification (e.g. a fingerprint scan, a palm scan, a retina scan, and an at least one vocal characteristic) as taught by Schaufele because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Morales would continue to teach face scan except that now a fingerprint scan, a palm scan, a retina scan, and an at least one vocal characteristic is taught according to the teachings of Schaufele in order to perform biometric identification. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Schaufele, [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 13
Morales discloses the delivery system of claim 1, wherein the external server calculates …determination based on the user identifier and the at least one pre-registered user characteristic, wherein the external server sends the delivery command to the delivery unit based on the …determination, the location determination, the verification determination, the eligibility determination, and the payment determination (Morales, [0129] FIG. 9 The buyer's App flow diagram performs payment determination by checking buyer’s balance and location determination by checking buyer’s GPS location against VM location prior to purchasing product; [0130] FIG. 10 The buyer's App flow diagram, continued to check buyer’s age and picture compared and if approved deliver product to buyer; [0109]: verification of user identity and cloud to instruct VM to dispense law-restricted product; FIG. 9, [0157]: determine from cloud whether buyer has minimum balance to purchase produces from VM; [0020] cloud folder contains Buyer's Balance; [0148]: check balance from buyer’s account; [0174]: App running on device generates the command when the buyers push a button to instruct the VM to deliver the purchased goods one by one or transfer the total amount paid allowing the buyer to take the goods one by one); [0011]: application sends requests to the server to instruct VM to vend the product).
Morales does not teach:
…an overly intoxicated determination ….the overly intoxicated determination.
However, Schaufele teaches:
…an overly intoxicated determination ….the overly intoxicated determination (Schaufele, [0071]: determine significant changes to one’s health such as slurred speech or other symptoms of intoxication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the determination of Morales with an overly intoxicated determination as taught by Schaufele because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Morales would continue to teach the determination except that now an overly intoxicated determination is taught according to the teachings of Schaufele in order to monitor health risks. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Schaufele, [0071-0072]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Heath (US Pub. 20180211718 A1) related to monitoring, collection, analysis, use and tracking of personal data, biometric data, and transaction data as well as Ooyen et al. (US Pub. No. 20120004770 A1) related to a vending machine for dispensing drugs. The non-patent literature is cited as MeddyCall: A Prototype of Smart Household-Drug Vending Machines for Residential Buildings, related to drug vending machine in a residential building for serving home medicine to all residents in the building.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764 and Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
