DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 the Application
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-24 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 1, 5-6, 16, and 18-19 were amended. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-24 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Note: Claims 21 and 24 are indicated as “amended,” but do not appear to include amendments from the previous claims or any markup indicating amendments.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Claims 5-6 and 18 were objected to for informalities. The claims were amended to the address the previous issues, and the previous objections are withdrawn.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-24 (pgs. 8-9, remarks filed 11/12/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
[C]laim 1 recites "a user device with a restaurant app installed" and "a business device having a list of permitted patrons". These devices are not "methods of organizing human activity" but rather are specially-programmed computers, as described in the Specification and shown in the Drawings. Furthermore, claim 1 recites "a reservation system" that coordinates reservation requests and transportation requests; while these might be activities performed by humans, the reservation system is a distinctly programmed computer. Additionally, claim 1 recites "said discounted check displayed in said restaurant app; and payment provided by said user through said restaurant app": displaying a discounted check in a restaurant app, and then receiving payment through said restaurant app, are not human activities, but rather these actions are accomplished by a specially- programmed computer (the user device with the restaurant app installed).
Similarly, claim 6 recites "a user device with a restaurant app installed" and "a service business computer" which coordinate reservation requests and transportation requests as well as "a discounted service check ... sent by said service business computer to said user device for display in said restaurant app" and "payment received from said user device on said discounted service check via said restaurant app". These are not just human activities, but rather actions accomplished by specially-programmed computers.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner reminds applicant that “The programmed computer or ‘special purpose computer’ test of In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (i.e., the rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim for the “special purpose” of executing the algorithm or software) was…superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘[W]e note that Alappat has been superseded by Bilski, 561 U.S. at 605–06, and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)’); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer’).”
All of the additional elements argued by applicant above merely describe generic computer components recited at a high level of generality, to perform a judicial exception on computers/in a computer environment. Using these generic computers (i.e. “a user device with a restaurant app installed,” “a business device having a list of permitted patrons,” “a reservation system,” “a user device with a restaurant app installed” and “a service business computer”) to perform generic computer functions and carry out the described functions above (i.e. apply the abstract idea) does not render the claims eligible. The alleged “specially-programmed computers” merely describes the automation of an abstract idea (e.g. a commercial process for managing reservation, billing, payment, and arrangement of transportation services between customers and service providers) on computers, but does not improve the underlying functionality of computers themselves.
Nothing in the claims indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology, and the specification makes clear that the (see ¶ 0028, ¶ 0031, spec. filed 8/24/2023) devices and computers described above are general-purpose, “off the shelf” computing devices. Instead, the argued additional elements above merely describe generic computers being used as tools to perform the abstract idea. As per MPEP 2106.05(f), “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
Therefore, the § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-24 is maintained.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-24 (pgs. 9-11, remarks filed 11/12/2025) have been considered but are moot, as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection under § 103 below, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Please see the current § 103 rejections of 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-24 below.
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, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-24 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 and 3-5 recite “A restaurant management system, comprising: a user device…a business device…” (i.e. a machine); Claims 6-8, 10-12, and 14-15 recite “service business management system, comprising: a service business computer…” (i.e. a machine); Claims 16 and 18 recite “A service business management system, comprising: a patron device…a business device…” (i.e. a machine); and Claims 19 and 21-24 recite “A service business management system comprising: a reservation system…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 includes limitations reciting concepts for:
storing a list of permitted patrons, accessing at least one transport rule, requesting a reservation (sending a reservation request) by a user,
sending/providing a confirmation to a user, after checking patron permission, in response to said reservation request;
sending a transportation request from said user using said confirmation to a third-party transportation service;
receiving a transportation receipt associated with said confirmation;
tabulating a table check associated with said confirmation; and
calculating and displaying a discounted check from said at least one transport rule, said table check, and said transportation receipt
providing payment by said user
Independent claim 6 includes limitations reciting concepts for:
a service business distributing patron eligibility credentials to users;
storing a database of transport discount rules
requesting a reservation (sending a reservation request to a service business) by a user,
providing a confirmation to the user after checking patron eligibility;
sending a transportation request from said user using said confirmation to a third-party transportation service;
receiving a transport receipt associated with said confirmation; tabulating a service check associated with said confirmation by said service business; and
calculating and displaying discounted service check by said service business from said tabulated service check, said transport receipt, and transport discount rules;
receiving payment from the user for the discounted service check
Independent claim 16 includes limitations reciting concepts for:
providing a list of available services;
storing a list of permitted patrons; generating/accessing at least one transport rule;
requesting a reservation (sending a reservation request) by a patron at a service business;
providing a confirmation, after an eligibility check, to said patron in response to said reservation request;
sending a transportation request using said confirmation to a third-party transportation service;
receiving a patron transport receipt;
accumulating a service check by the patron;
calculating a discounted service check from said at least one transport rule, said service check, and
said transport receipt and providing the discounted service check to the patron for payment;
receiving payment for the discounted check from the patron
wherein said transport receipt is associated with said service check
Independent claim 19 includes limitations reciting concepts for:
creating service appointments by customers at businesses;
storing confirmations relating to service appointments made;
storing a plurality of transport receipts according indicating delivery of customers to businesses according to confirmation;
tabulating a plurality of checks for services ordered by customers, and
storing said tabulated service checks according to confirmation;
accessing at least one transport discount rule(s); and
generating a discounted check by deducting, according to said at least one transport discount rule, at least a portion of said transport receipt from the tabulated service check sharing the same confirmation
receiving the discounted check from one of said businesses
receiving payment for the discounted check from a customer
The limitations of independent claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. managing reservations, billing and payment between restaurants/service providers and customers, and requesting transportation using a reservation confirmation, and calculating discounted service checks based on transportation discount rules, service checks, and transport receipts of claims 1, 6, and 16; and managing reservations, billing and payment between businesses and customers and calculating discounted service checks based on transportation discount rules, service checks, and transport receipts of claim 19) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Since the processes described by the limitations above amount to a commercial interaction and managing interactions between people (i.e. managing reservations, billing and payment between restaurants/service providers and customers, and requesting transportation using a reservation confirmation, and calculating discounted service checks based on transportation discount rules, service checks, and transport receipts of claims 1, 6, and 16; and managing reservations, billing and payment between businesses and customers and calculating discounted service checks based on transportation discount rules, service checks, and transport receipts of claim 19 which correspond to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations, and management of interactions between restaurants and/or service entities and patrons/customers), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 also recite various limitations directed to calculating table checks or service checks, and calculating discounted table checks or service checks, which are mathematical calculations. See in particular, tabulating a table check (claims 1, 6), calculating a discounted check (claims 1, 6, 16) and generating a discounted check by deducting…at least a portion of said transport receipt (claim 19). As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping.” Therefore, the limitations pertaining to calculating checks or discounted checks are also considered to recite an abstract idea.
While claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mathematical concepts”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea in each claim for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis according to MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. managing reservations, billing and payment between restaurants/service providers and customers, and requesting transportation using a reservation confirmation, and calculating discounted service checks based on transportation discount rules, service checks, and transport receipts of claims 1, 6, and 16; and managing reservations, billing and payment between businesses and customers and calculating discounted service checks based on transportation discount rules, service checks, and transport receipts of claim 19) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a restaurant management system comprising: a user device with a restaurant app installed, a business device, a reservation system, and a third-party transportation service system of claim 1; a service business management system comprising: a service business computer, a database, and a user device with a restaurant app installed, and a third-party transportation service system of claim 6; a service business management system comprising a patron device, a business device, and a reservation system, and a third-party transportation system of claim 16; and service business management system comprising a reservation system, a computer, and a database, an application program accessible by both the customers and the businesses, said application program in data communication with said database, and a restaurant app displayed at a user device of claim 19). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” A user device having a restaurant app installed merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and transmitting a check to the restaurant app, and using the restaurant app installed on a user device display a check and provide payment for the check describes the use of generic computers as tools to perform the abstract idea. The recited limitations for: a business device having a list of permitted patrons (claim 1), receiving and transmitting (sending) various information between the user device, said business device, a third-party transportation service system, and a reservation system (claim 1), displaying the discounted check via the restaurant app (claim 1), a database of transport discount rules in communication with said service business computer (claim 6), a user device, service business computer, and third-party transportation service system receiving and transmitting various information between one another (claim 6), displaying the service check in the restaurant app (claim 6), a patron device having a list of available services and a business device having a list of permitted patrons (claim 19), a reservation system accessible by said business device and said patron device (claim 19), receiving/transmitting various information between the patron device, reservation system, business device, said application program, and restaurant app (claim 16), a computer in data communication with said reservation system (claim 19), a database storing confirmations, transport receipts, and service checks (claim 19), said application program in data communication with said database (claim 19), all amount to generic computer functions used to carry out the abstract idea within a computer environment, and the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, transmit, store, or output (e.g. display) data. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, but instead amounts to mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Note: While the claims recite the “at least one transport rule,” “reservation request,” “confirmation,” “transportation receipt,” “table check,” “discounted check,” “service check,” “discounted service check,” “patron transport receipt,” “a plurality of transport receipts,” “a plurality of checks,” and “at least one transport discount rules,” as parts of the systems of claims 1, 6, 16 and 19, these are not additional elements (e.g. computer elements) for the purposes of Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, but are merely system elements involved in (or resulting from) the performance of the abstract idea steps described above. Therefore, these claimed elements merely describe and relate to the steps comprising the abstract idea. However, even assuming, arguendo, that applicant believes these are additional elements, they would do nothing more than represent data that generally link the performance of the abstract idea to the fields of use of reservations and service discounts.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. managing reservations, billing and payment between restaurants/service providers and customers, and requesting transportation using a reservation confirmation, and calculating discounted service checks based on transportation discount rules, service checks, and transport receipts of claims 1, 6, and 16; and managing reservations, billing and payment between businesses and customers and calculating discounted service checks based on transportation discount rules, service checks, and transport receipts of claim 19) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a restaurant management system comprising: a user device with a restaurant app installed, a business device, a reservation system, and a third-party transportation service system of claim 1; a service business management system comprising: a service business computer, a database, and a user device with a restaurant app installed, and a third-party transportation service system of claim 6; a service business management system comprising a patron device, a business device, and a reservation system, and a third-party transportation system of claim 16; and service business management system comprising a reservation system, a computer, and a database, an application program accessible by both the customers and the businesses, said application program in data communication with said database, and a restaurant app displayed at a user device of claim 19). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” A user device having a restaurant app installed merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and transmitting a check to the restaurant app, and using the restaurant app installed on a user device display a check and provide payment for the check describes the use of generic computers as tools to perform the abstract idea. The recited limitations for: a business device having a list of permitted patrons (claim 1), receiving and transmitting (sending) various information between the user device, said business device, a third-party transportation service system, and a reservation system (claim 1), displaying the discounted check via the restaurant app (claim 1), a database of transport discount rules in communication with said service business computer (claim 6), a user device, service business computer, and third-party transportation service system receiving and transmitting various information between one another (claim 6), displaying the service check in the restaurant app (claim 6), a patron device having a list of available services and a business device having a list of permitted patrons (claim 19), a reservation system accessible by said business device and said patron device (claim 19), receiving/transmitting various information between the patron device, reservation system, business device, said application program, and restaurant app (claim 16), a computer in data communication with said reservation system (claim 19), a database storing confirmations, transport receipts, and service checks (claim 19), said application program in data communication with said database (claim 19), all amount to generic computer functions used to carry out the abstract idea within a computer environment, and the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, transmit, store, or output (e.g. display) data. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more, but instead amounts to mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Considering the additional elements above together as an ordered combination does not add anything beyond applying the abstract idea using generic computers. Therefore, claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 do not recite anything that adds significantly more than the abstract idea.
Note: While the claims recite the “at least one transport rule,” “reservation request,” “confirmation,” “transportation receipt,” “table check,” “discounted check,” “service check,” “discounted service check,” “patron transport receipt,” “a plurality of transport receipts,” “a plurality of checks,” and “at least one transport discount rules,” as parts of the systems of claims 1, 6, 16 and 19, these are not additional elements (e.g. computer elements) for the purposes of Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, but are merely system elements involved in (or resulting from) the performance of the abstract idea steps described above. Therefore, these claimed elements merely describe and relate to the steps comprising the abstract idea. However, even assuming, arguendo, that applicant believes these are additional elements, they would do nothing more than data that generally link the performance of the abstract idea to the fields of use of reservations and service discounts.
Dependent Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 18, and 21-24:
Dependent claims 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, 18, and 21-24 are directed to the same abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1, 6, 16, and 19 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3-5 and 18 recite the following limitations which do not introduce further additional elements beyond those already discussed above, but merely further describe the abstract idea being applied using generic computers by reciting limitations for: a third-party contribution used to calculate said discounted check (claims 3-4), wherein the business approves the discounted check… (claim 5), and wherein a patron eligibility is performed (claim 18).
Claims 7, 10-12, and 15 also recite the various limitations which merely use computers and computer elements in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea by storing/receiving/transmitting data, including: “wherein said tabulated service check and said discounted service check are stored in a service business CRM system” (claim 7); using an API to connect said service business computer to a transport computer, said user device to a transport computer, and said service business computer to a reservation computer (claims 10-12); and wherein patron eligibility is determined by CRM functionality (claim 15).
Claim 8 further describes “wherein said service business computer is a restaurant computer,” and claim 14 describes “said service business computer is provided as a phone or tablet” which does not alter the analysis above but merely further describes the generic computers that are being used to apply the abstract idea. Claims 21-24 recite “a plurality of mobile computing devices, each of said mobile computing devices executing said application program,” (claim 21) “wherein customers use one of said mobile computing devices to request the service appointment” (claim 22), “wherein business uses one of said mobile computing devices to confirm service appointment requests” (claim 23), and “wherein said computer and said database are provided as Internet-based services” (claim 24). These limitations of claims 21-24 amount to nothing more than steps further describing the abstract idea and being applied on generic computer devices (i.e. mobile computing devices executing an application program and wherein said computer and said database operate over the Internet).
Therefore, claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-19, and 21-24 are ineligible under § 101.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015081060 A1 to McGregor et al. (McGregor) in view of US 20170351977 A1 to Bijor et al. (Bijor), and further in view of US 20170249653 A1 to Karambatsos.
Claim 1: McGregor teaches:
A restaurant management system (McGregor: Fig. 1, ¶ 0046-0068 showing system configuration for managing restaurant reservations and payments), comprising:
a user device with a restaurant app installed (McGregor: ¶ 0015, ¶ 0040 showing mobile application installed on a mobile phone of a patron or customer; and as per ¶ 0085 the mobile application “can be generic or specific to the restaurant, the bar and/or business entity”);
a business device (McGregor: Fig. 1 server(s) 114 or 102; note as per ¶ 0061-0062 the server(s) 114/112 may be configured in a number of different manners or incorporated on any POS system) having a list of permitted patrons (McGregor: Fig. 1, ¶ 0050-0053 showing user profile module 118 of the host server(s) 114 which stores user profiles at registration, including photo ID or identification indicating DOB and whether the user is 21+ - and specifying this information is accessible for use by the restaurants);
a reservation request transmitted from said user device to said business device via a reservation system (McGregor: ¶ 0055 “Many patrons make a reservation at a venue prior to entering the establishment. Patrons may make the reservation using a reservation system, a third party application, calling via a telephone, or using a reservation feature in the mobile application. The mobile application may request that the server to connect with a reservation system to link a reservation made by the patron prior to entering the venue with a table number entered on the reservation system.”);
a confirmation sent, after checking patron permission (McGregor: ¶ 0053 showing “If the user is over 21 years of age based on the information in their photo ID, the server labels the POS system ticket as "21+." If the user is under 21 years of age based on the information in their photo ID, the server labels the POS system ticket as "Under 21."”), from said business device to said user device in response to said reservation request (McGregor: ¶ 0055 showing in response to the request to link reservation prior to entry, “The server may then open the ticket on the point of sale system using the proper table number based on this information” – wherein as per ¶ 0079-0080 confirmation of the linked ticket record is also transmitted to a first user’s mobile computing device by host server; also note that in ¶ 0049 “The check-in module 106 may be configured to allow a user to check-in to the system and access and/or manage one or more reservations and/or the user's account”);
a table check tabulated by said business device and associated with said confirmation (McGregor: ¶ 0086, ¶ 0127 showing calculating a tab in real-time which may be updated as items are ordered – noting as per ¶ 0055 above a ticket was created which was linked to the user’s reservation/table);
With respect to the following limitation, McGregor does not explicitly teach sending a transportation request based upon the reservation/confirmation information – however, Bijor teaches:
a transportation request sent from said reservation system using said confirmation (Bijor: ¶ 0046-0047, ¶ 0074 showing the system records event confirmation information when a user has accepted or made a reservation to an event, such as “an identifier of the first user, the number of requested seats by the first user, the event identifier or information, time when the first user accepted, and/or other information associated with the first user and/or the event” and ¶ 0075 “the system 100 can associate information about the event with a profile or account of the first user, and/or update the event entry with information associated with the first user (242)”; wherein as per ¶ 0031 “ the event provider can be a restauranteur (e.g., an owner or manager of a restaurant) and an event can correspond to a reservation for a specified starting time at the restaurant”) to a third-party transportation service system (Bijor: ¶ 0055 “The system 100 can also include the matching service 110. The matching service 110 can arrange a transport service or a delivery service, for a user… the matching service 110 to cause the system 100 to transmit a trip notification 173 to a user who has accepted or ordered a seat(s) at the specified event in advance of the start time of the event,” wherein as per ¶ 0055-0059 the notification and subsequent trip request is based on the event information including the user’s reservation to the event, and if the user makes a trip request to the event location, in ¶ 0062 “The matching service 110 can transmit an invitation message 185 to the service provider application 181 of the selected service provider”; see Fig. 1B, and Fig. 1A showing system config. for context);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the service arrangement system transmitting a transportation request to a transportation provider, based on received event reservation information of Bijor in the reservation system of McGregor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “other parties may want to leverage the network system to share data with users and/or service providers that use the network service” (Bijor: ¶ 0002) and “ to facilitate user participation in events in conjunction with arranging transport services” (Bijor: ¶ 0027).
With respect to the following limitations, Bijor also teaches that an event provider (restaurant) may offer a discount on the event seat reservation itself or a discount on a transport service provided to the user, if the parameters of the transport service meet certain conditions such as dropping the user off within a threshold distance and within a time period before the start of the event (restaurant reservation) (Bijor: ¶ 0035, ¶ 0043, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0076, ¶ 0082) and creates trip entries in the trips database (Bijor: ¶ 0059, ¶ 0061) – however, to the extent that McGregor/Bijor do not explicitly teach all of the following, Karambatsos teaches:
at least one transport rule accessible by said business device (Karambatsos: ¶ 0057 for example “the consumer must satisfy certain conditions in order to benefit from the discount provided by the transportation based offer, which are described in more detail below. Conditions may include, for example, periods of time within which the transportation based offer is made available to the consumer, and specific transportation modes (such as, for example, subway fares and taxi fares only) with respect to which a merchant is prepared to make a transportation based offer (referred to as qualified transportation modes). If the consumer fails to comply with the conditions of the transportation based offer, he/she cannot take advantage of the discount” wherein as per ¶ 0065, ¶ 076, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0088-0090 showing offers and their associated conditions are stored in offers database; which in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are accessible to computers/servers);
a transportation receipt received from said reservation system by said business device and associated with said confirmation (Karambatsos: ¶ 0111 showing the system receives “proof of payment of the activity cost (for example payment of the transportation cost)” from the consumer, i.e. a transportation receipt; also see ¶ 0028-0029);
a discounted check calculated by said business device from said at least one transport rule, said table check, said transportation receipt (Karambatsos: ¶ 0131-0133 showing offer including rules in which a qualified transportation cost will be deducted from cost of a meal at a restaurant, i.e. a check for $30 is discounted by the cost of the transportation service, $10, the consumer only pays the restaurant $20 plus tip and gratuities calculated on pre-deduction amount, according the rules of the offer; see ¶ 0111 specifying “The redeeming of the offer can be performed by the merchant or automatically by the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30. In an alternative embodiment, all transfer of money, awarding of points, issuing of certificates, etc., may be accomplished by the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30”; and also see ¶ 0057 showing conditions for benefiting from the transportation-based offer as per above);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transport rules for qualifying for offers, and redeeming of the offer to discount a restaurant check by the transportation cost according to offer rules and the proof of payment of Karambatsos in the reservation system of McGregor/Bijor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “There is currently no method or system available which conditions both (i) the moment of redemption or application of a discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion in relation to the purchase or procurement of goods and/or services, as well as (ii) the moment of availability to individuals of such discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion, by (iii) limiting both the redemption and the availability of such discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion to optimal moments dynamically established and customized by a commercial establishment in a way that enables such merchant to optimally allocate its human capital and operating resources, and (iv) which limits a key risk inherent to traditional group discount models, which is that the customer acquisition cost (CAC) under such models is generally incurred before the effective return on investment (ROI) associated with such cost is realized or known (including as a result of the unknown breakage rate at the time a merchant consents to the sale of an offer) while (v) minimizing brand dilution. Thus there is a clear need for such a method or system” (Karambatsos: ¶ 0025).
McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
said discounted check displayed in said restaurant app (McGregor: ¶ 0086 showing the user receives and may view his/her individual bill or tab, including a total amount due; wherein as per ¶ 0120 a discount may be applied to a current check for billing and payment – “the system allows for the tracking of points and credits through the mobile application that can be used for promotional, discount, and marketing efforts. The points and/or credits may be stored in the user's profile. The server may keep track of points accrued through use of the application and apply these points to different interactions that can take place inside the application. In one example of a use of this system, a user may accrue points for each dollar spent through the application. The user can then redeem the points for a discount, which can be applied through the mobile application, towards a current or future bill/payment);
and payment provided by said user through said restaurant app (McGregor: ¶ 0088 “At any point, the user can pay his/her entire bill or a portion of his/her bill by wirelessly sending a pay bill request from the client computing device to the server”; see ¶ 0054 specifying the user/client device interacts through the mobile application for viewing and paying the bill)
Claim 3: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 1. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
further comprising a third- party contribution, and wherein said third party contribution is also used to calculate said discounted check (McGregor: ¶ 0059 showing the user may invite one or more friends or other users to the tab, initiate bill splitting and determine amounts paid by each of the users based on the bill split – taking into consideration other coupons or discounts applied to the tab; also see ¶ 0089-0090)
Claim 5: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 1. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the business approves the discounted check via the business device before it is presented to the patron for payment (McGregor: Fig. 6F, ¶ 0140-0141 showing verifying the correct customer linked to the right check – and the figure showing “Charge customer $35.22 + $6.34 gratuity…Are you sure?” and including Yes/No options for selection; also see ¶ 0099, ¶ 0119-0120 showing promotions/discounts are included in the calculation of the tab/bill)
Claim 6: McGregor teaches:
A service business management system (McGregor: Fig. 1, ¶ 0046-0068 showing system configuration for managing restaurant reservations and payments), comprising:
a service business computer (McGregor: Fig. 1 server(s) 114 or 102; note as per ¶ 0061-0062 the server(s) 114, 102 may be configured in a number of different manners or incorporated on any POS system) that distributes patron eligibility credentials to user devices (McGregor: ¶ 0051-0053 showing user registration/sign-up and credentials associated with the user account, such the server validating the user’s ID and “If the ID is deemed valid, it is associated in the data store with the user's other account information”; also see ¶ 0049 showing “The user profiles may include, for example, information identifying users (e.g., a username or handle, a number, an identifier, and/or other identifying information) within the virtual space, security login information (e.g., a login code or password), virtual space account information, subscription information, payment account information, relationship information…”);
a user device with a restaurant app installed (McGregor: ¶ 0015, ¶ 0040 showing mobile application installed on a mobile phone of a patron or customer; and as per ¶ 0085 the mobile application “can be generic or specific to the restaurant, the bar and/or business entity”) for transmitting a reservation request to said service business computer (McGregor: ¶ 0055 “Many patrons make a reservation at a venue prior to entering the establishment. Patrons may make the reservation using a reservation system, a third party application, calling via a telephone, or using a reservation feature in the mobile application. The mobile application may request that the server to connect with a reservation system to link a reservation made by the patron prior to entering the venue with a table number entered on the reservation system.”);
a confirmation sent to the user after checking patron eligibility (McGregor: ¶ 0055 showing in response to the request to link reservation prior to entry, “The server may then open the ticket on the point of sale system using the proper table number based on this information” – wherein as per ¶ 0079-0080 confirmation of the linked ticket record is transmitted to a first user’s mobile computing device by host server and in ¶ 0049 “The check-in module 106 may be configured to allow a user to check-in to the system and access and/or manage one or more reservations and/or the user's account”; as per ¶ 0053 “If the user is over 21 years of age based on the information in their photo ID, the server labels the POS system ticket as "21+”);
a service check tabulated by said service business computer and associated with said confirmation (McGregor: ¶ 0086, ¶ 0127 showing calculating a tab in real-time which may be updated as items are ordered – noting as per ¶ 0055 above a ticket, i.e. confirmation was created which was linked to the user’s reservation/table);
With respect to the following limitations, McGregor does not explicitly teach, however, Bijor teaches:
a transportation request sent from said user device using said confirmation (Bijor: ¶ 0046-0047, ¶ 0074 showing the system records confirmation information when a user has accepted or made a reservation to an event, such as “an identifier of the first user, the number of requested seats by the first user, the event identifier or information, time when the first user accepted, and/or other information associated with the first user and/or the event” and ¶ 0075 “the system 100 can associate information about the event with a profile or account of the first user, and/or update the event entry with information associated with the first user (242)”; wherein as per ¶ 0031 “ the event provider can be a restauranteur (e.g., an owner or manager of a restaurant) and an event can correspond to a reservation for a specified starting time at the restaurant”) to a third-party transportation service system (Bijor: ¶ 0055 “The system 100 can also include the matching service 110. The matching service 110 can arrange a transport service or a delivery service, for a user… the matching service 110 to cause the system 100 to transmit a trip notification 173 to a user who has accepted or ordered a seat(s) at the specified event in advance of the start time of the event,” wherein as per ¶ 0055-0059 the notification and subsequent trip request is based on the event information including the user’s reservation to the event, and if the user makes a trip request to the event location, in ¶ 0062 “The matching service 110 can transmit an invitation message 185 to the service provider application 181 of the selected service provider”; see Fig. 1B, and Fig. 1A showing system config. for context);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the service arrangement system transmitting a transportation request to a transportation provider, based on received event reservation information of Bijor in the reservation system of McGregor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “other parties may want to leverage the network system to share data with users and/or service providers that use the network service” (Bijor: ¶ 0002) and “ to facilitate user participation in events in conjunction with arranging transport services” (Bijor: ¶ 0027).
With respect to the following limitations, Bijor also teaches that an event provider (restaurant) may offer a discount on the event seat itself or a discount on a transport service provided to the user, if the parameters of the transport service meet certain conditions such as dropping the user off within a threshold distance and within a time period before the start of the event (restaurant reservation) (Bijor: ¶ 0035, ¶ 0043, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0076, ¶ 0082) and creates trip entries in the trips database (Bijor: ¶ 0059, ¶ 0061) – however, to the extent that McGregor/Bijor do not explicitly teach all of the following, Karambatsos teaches:
a database of transport discount rules in communication with said service business computer (Karambatsos: ¶ 0057 for example “the consumer must satisfy certain conditions in order to benefit from the discount provided by the transportation based offer, which are described in more detail below. Conditions may include, for example, periods of time within which the transportation based offer is made available to the consumer, and specific transportation modes (such as, for example, subway fares and taxi fares only) with respect to which a merchant is prepared to make a transportation based offer (referred to as qualified transportation modes). If the consumer fails to comply with the conditions of the transportation based offer, he/she cannot take advantage of the discount” wherein as per ¶ 0065, ¶ 076, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0088-0090 showing offers and their associated conditions are stored in offers database; see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 showing accessible to computers/servers);
a transport receipt received at said service business computer associated with said confirmation (Karambatsos: ¶ 0111 showing the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30 may be provided with proof of payment of the activity cost (for example payment of the transportation cost) or proof of fulfillment of the activity and then, upon the consumer effectuating a disbursement at the merchant's establishment greater or equal to the activity cost (in the case of the fulfilment of an activity, the activity cost may be a direct monetary cost, an equivalent monetary cost or an assigned monetary cost) multiplied by the conversion ratio, the offer is redeemed (i.e. the discount, reward, points or gift certificate is applied/provided)”, i.e. a transportation receipt associated with the purchase at a restaurant; also see ¶ 0028-0029; note that as per McGregor above, the business computer is already associated with the confirmation/ticket created and transmitted to the user according to their reservation request);
a discounted service check calculated by said service business computer from said tabulated service check, said transport receipt, and transport discount rules retrieved from said database (Karambatsos: ¶ 0131-0133 showing offer including rules in which a qualified transportation cost will be deducted from cost of a meal at a restaurant, i.e. a check for $30 is discounted by the cost of the transportation service, $10, the consumer only pays the restaurant $20 plus tip and gratuities calculated on pre-deduction amount, according the rules of the offer; see ¶ 0111 specifying “The redeeming of the offer can be performed by the merchant or automatically by the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30. In an alternative embodiment, all transfer of money, awarding of points, issuing of certificates, etc., may be accomplished by the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transport rules for qualifying for offers, and redeeming of the offer to discount a restaurant check by the transportation cost according to offer rules and the proof of payment of Karambatsos in the reservation system of McGregor/Bijor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “There is currently no method or system available which conditions both (i) the moment of redemption or application of a discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion in relation to the purchase or procurement of goods and/or services, as well as (ii) the moment of availability to individuals of such discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion, by (iii) limiting both the redemption and the availability of such discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion to optimal moments dynamically established and customized by a commercial establishment in a way that enables such merchant to optimally allocate its human capital and operating resources, and (iv) which limits a key risk inherent to traditional group discount models, which is that the customer acquisition cost (CAC) under such models is generally incurred before the effective return on investment (ROI) associated with such cost is realized or known (including as a result of the unknown breakage rate at the time a merchant consents to the sale of an offer) while (v) minimizing brand dilution. Thus there is a clear need for such a method or system” (Karambatsos: ¶ 0025).
McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein said discounted service check is sent by said service business computer to said user device for display in said restaurant app (McGregor: ¶ 0086 showing the user receives and may view his/her individual bill or tab, including a total amount due; wherein as per ¶ 0120 a discount may be applied to a current check for billing and payment – “the system allows for the tracking of points and credits through the mobile application that can be used for promotional, discount, and marketing efforts. The points and/or credits may be stored in the user's profile. The server may keep track of points accrued through use of the application and apply these points to different interactions that can take place inside the application. In one example of a use of this system, a user may accrue points for each dollar spent through the application. The user can then redeem the points for a discount, which can be applied through the mobile application, towards a current or future bill/payment); and
payment received from said user device on said discounted service check via said restaurant app (McGregor: ¶ 0088 “At any point, the user can pay his/her entire bill or a portion of his/her bill by wirelessly sending a pay bill request from the client computing device to the server”; see ¶ 0054 specifying the user/client device interacts through the mobile application for viewing and paying the bill)
Claim 8: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 6. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein said service business computer is a restaurant computer (McGregor: ¶ 0015 “The server may be hosted by a business establishment (e.g., a restaurant, bar, hotel, salon, airline, gas station)”)
Claim 12: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 6. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein said service business computer is connected to a reservation computer by API (McGregor: ¶ 0042 “The companion device, the POS terminal, and the customer's mobile device all communicate with an API on a server, which can receive and transmit instructions and data to the other components”)
Claim 14: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 6. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein said service business computer is provided as a phone or tablet (McGregor: ¶ 0041-0042 defining business establishment POS system, with ¶ 0042 showing “The POS system may be configured to include a companion computing device, which may be configured as a mobile device having network connectivity, such as an Apple iPod or a personal data assistant. The companion device, the POS terminal, and the customer's mobile device all communicate with an API on a server, which can receive and transmit instructions and data to the other components”; also see ¶ 0151 “The exemplary embodiments described herein are described as software executed on at least one server, though it is understood that embodiments can be configured in other ways and retain functionality. The embodiments can be implemented on known devices such as a personal computer, a special purpose computer, cellular telephone, personal digital assistant ("PDA"), a digital camera, a digital tablet”)
Claim 16: McGregor teaches:
A service business management system (McGregor: Fig. 1, ¶ 0046-0068 showing system configuration for managing restaurant/business establishment), comprising:
a patron device having a list of available services (McGregor: ¶ 0145-0147 and Figs. 8A-8B customer device displays a list of different venues and a vibe rating for each venue, which in ¶ 0147 “provides a user further flexibility in choosing the type of place they want to visit. For example, if a user is looking to party, they may choose to go to a lively establishment. On the other hand, if a user is looking for a quiet place to take a date, the user may prefer a quiet place”);
a business device (McGregor: Fig. 1 server(s) 114 or 102; note as per ¶ 0061-0062 the server(s) 114, 102 may be configured in a number of different manners or incorporated on any POS system) having a list of permitted patrons (McGregor: Fig. 1, ¶ 0050-0053 showing user profile module 118 of the host server(s) 114 which stores user profiles at registration, including photo ID or identification indicating DOB and whether the user is 21+ - and specifying this information is accessible for use by the restaurants, bars, or venues);
a reservation system accessible by said business device and said patron device (McGregor: McGregor: ¶ 0055 “Many patrons make a reservation at a venue prior to entering the establishment. Patrons may make the reservation using a reservation system, a third party application, calling via a telephone, or using a reservation feature in the mobile application. The mobile application may request that the server to connect with a reservation system to link a reservation made by the patron prior to entering the venue with a table number entered on the reservation system.”; also see ¶ 0049 showing reservations managed by check-in module);
a reservation request transmitted from said patron device to said reservation system (McGregor: ¶ 0055 “Many patrons make a reservation at a venue prior to entering the establishment. Patrons may make the reservation using a reservation system, a third party application, calling via a telephone, or using a reservation feature in the mobile application. The mobile application may request that the server to connect with a reservation system to link a reservation made by the patron prior to entering the venue with a table number entered on the reservation system.”; also see ¶ 0049);
a confirmation sent, after an eligibility check (McGregor: ¶ 0053 showing “If the user is over 21 years of age based on the information in their photo ID, the server labels the POS system ticket as "21+." If the user is under 21 years of age based on the information in their photo ID, the server labels the POS system ticket as "Under 21."”), from said reservation system to said patron device in response to said reservation request (McGregor: ¶ 0055 showing in response to the request to link reservation prior to entry, “The server may then open the ticket on the point of sale system using the proper table number based on this information” – wherein as per ¶ 0079-0080 confirmation of the linked ticket record is transmitted to a first user’s mobile computing device by host server and in ¶ 0049 “The check-in module 106 may be configured to allow a user to check-in to the system and access and/or manage one or more reservations and/or the user's account”);
a service check accumulated by the patron at the service business (McGregor: ¶ 0086, ¶ 0127 showing calculating a tab in real-time which may be updated as items are ordered – noting as per ¶ 0055 above a ticket was created which was linked to the user’s reservation/table);
With respect to the following limitation, McGregor does not explicitly teach sending a transportation request based upon the reservation/confirmation information – however, Bijor teaches:
a transportation request sent from said reservation system using said confirmation (Bijor: ¶ 0046-0047, ¶ 0074 showing the system records event confirmation information when a user has accepted or made a reservation to an event, such as “an identifier of the first user, the number of requested seats by the first user, the event identifier or information, time when the first user accepted, and/or other information associated with the first user and/or the event” and ¶ 0075 “the system 100 can associate information about the event with a profile or account of the first user, and/or update the event entry with information associated with the first user (242)”; wherein as per ¶ 0031 “ the event provider can be a restauranteur (e.g., an owner or manager of a restaurant) and an event can correspond to a reservation for a specified starting time at the restaurant”) to a third-party transportation service system (Bijor: ¶ 0055 “The system 100 can also include the matching service 110. The matching service 110 can arrange a transport service or a delivery service, for a user… the matching service 110 to cause the system 100 to transmit a trip notification 173 to a user who has accepted or ordered a seat(s) at the specified event in advance of the start time of the event,” wherein as per ¶ 0055-0059 the notification and subsequent trip request is based on the event information including the user’s reservation to the event, and if the user makes a trip request to the event location, in ¶ 0062 “The matching service 110 can transmit an invitation message 185 to the service provider application 181 of the selected service provider”; see Fig. 1B, and Fig. 1A showing system config. for context);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the service arrangement system transmitting a transportation request to a transportation provider, based on received event reservation information of Bijor in the reservation system of McGregor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “other parties may want to leverage the network system to share data with users and/or service providers that use the network service” (Bijor: ¶ 0002) and “ to facilitate user participation in events in conjunction with arranging transport services” (Bijor: ¶ 0027).
With respect to the following limitations, Bijor also teaches that an event provider (restaurant) may offer a discount on the event seat reservation itself or a discount on a transport service provided to the user, if the parameters of the transport service meet certain conditions such as dropping the user off within a threshold distance and within a time period before the start of the event (restaurant reservation) (Bijor: ¶ 0035, ¶ 0043, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0076, ¶ 0082) and creates trip entries in the trips database (Bijor: ¶ 0059, ¶ 0061) – however, to the extent that McGregor/Bijor do not explicitly teach all of the following, Karambatsos teaches:
at least one transport rule generated by and accessible by said business device (Karambatsos: ¶ 0057 for example “the consumer must satisfy certain conditions in order to benefit from the discount provided by the transportation based offer, which are described in more detail below. Conditions may include, for example, periods of time within which the transportation based offer is made available to the consumer, and specific transportation modes (such as, for example, subway fares and taxi fares only) with respect to which a merchant is prepared to make a transportation based offer (referred to as qualified transportation modes). If the consumer fails to comply with the conditions of the transportation based offer, he/she cannot take advantage of the discount” wherein as per ¶ 0065, ¶ 0076, ¶ 0079-0080, ¶ 0088-0090 showing offers and their associated conditions are created by merchants and stored in offers database; see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 showing accessible to computers/servers);
a patron transport receipt received by said business device (Karambatsos: ¶ 0111 showing the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30 may be provided with proof of payment of the activity cost (for example payment of the transportation cost) or proof of fulfillment of the activity and then, upon the consumer effectuating a disbursement at the merchant's establishment greater or equal to the activity cost (in the case of the fulfilment of an activity, the activity cost may be a direct monetary cost, an equivalent monetary cost or an assigned monetary cost) multiplied by the conversion ratio, the offer is redeemed (i.e. the discount, reward, points or gift certificate is applied/provided)”, i.e. a transportation receipt; also see ¶ 0028-0029);
said discounted service check calculated by said business device from said at least one transport rule, said service check, and said transport receipt (Karambatsos: ¶ 0131-0133 showing offer including rules in which a qualified transportation cost will be deducted from cost of a meal at a restaurant, i.e. a check for $30 is discounted by the cost of the transportation service, $10, the consumer only pays the restaurant $20 plus tip and gratuities calculated on pre-deduction amount, according the rules of the offer; see ¶ 0111 specifying “The redeeming of the offer can be performed by the merchant or automatically by the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30. In an alternative embodiment, all transfer of money, awarding of points, issuing of certificates, etc., may be accomplished by the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30”);
wherein said reservation system associates said transport receipt with said service check (Karambatsos: ¶ 0111 showing the system receives “proof of payment of the activity cost (for example payment of the transportation cost)” from the consumer, i.e. a transportation receipt which is used to validate the offer; also see ¶ 0028-0029)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transport rules for qualifying for offers, and redeeming of the offer to discount a restaurant check by the transportation cost according to offer rules and the proof of payment of Karambatsos in the reservation system of McGregor/Bijor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “There is currently no method or system available which conditions both (i) the moment of redemption or application of a discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion in relation to the purchase or procurement of goods and/or services, as well as (ii) the moment of availability to individuals of such discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion, by (iii) limiting both the redemption and the availability of such discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion to optimal moments dynamically established and customized by a commercial establishment in a way that enables such merchant to optimally allocate its human capital and operating resources, and (iv) which limits a key risk inherent to traditional group discount models, which is that the customer acquisition cost (CAC) under such models is generally incurred before the effective return on investment (ROI) associated with such cost is realized or known (including as a result of the unknown breakage rate at the time a merchant consents to the sale of an offer) while (v) minimizing brand dilution. Thus there is a clear need for such a method or system” (Karambatsos: ¶ 0025).
McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
and a discounted service check presented to the patron for payment (McGregor: ¶ 0086 showing the user receives and may view his/her individual bill or tab, including a total amount due; wherein as per ¶ 0120 a discount may be applied to a current check for billing and payment – “the system allows for the tracking of points and credits through the mobile application that can be used for promotional, discount, and marketing efforts. The points and/or credits may be stored in the user's profile. The server may keep track of points accrued through use of the application and apply these points to different interactions that can take place inside the application. In one example of a use of this system, a user may accrue points for each dollar spent through the application. The user can then redeem the points for a discount, which can be applied through the mobile application, towards a current or future bill/payment),
payment of said discounted check received from the patron through said reservation system (McGregor: ¶ 0088 “At any point, the user can pay his/her entire bill or a portion of his/her bill by wirelessly sending a pay bill request from the client computing device to the server”; see ¶ 0054 specifying the user/client device interacts through the mobile application with the server for viewing and paying the bill):
Claim 18: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 16. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein a patron eligibility check is performed on said business device (McGregor: ¶ 0053 showing “If the user is over 21 years of age based on the information in their photo ID, the server labels the POS system ticket as "21+”)
Claim 19: McGregor teaches:
A service business management system (McGregor: Fig. 1, ¶ 0046-0068 showing system configuration for managing restaurant/business establishment) comprising:
a reservation system having customers and to create service appointments at businesses (McGregor: ¶ 0055 “Many patrons make a reservation at a venue prior to entering the establishment. Patrons may make the reservation using a reservation system, a third party application, calling via a telephone, or using a reservation feature in the mobile application. The mobile application may request that the server to connect with a reservation system to link a reservation made by the patron prior to entering the venue with a table number entered on the reservation system”; also see ¶ 0049 “The check-in module 106 may manage any reservations comprising time, date, location, and service requested of a business”);
a computer (McGregor: Fig. 1 server(s) 114 or 102; note as per ¶ 0061-0062 the server(s) 114, 102 may be configured in a number of different manners or incorporated on any POS system) in data communication with said reservation system (McGregor: ¶ 0055 “the mobile application may request that the server to connect with a reservation system to link a reservation made by the patron prior to entering the venue with a table number entered on the reservation system);
a database storing confirmations relating to service appointments made on said reservation system (McGregor: McGregor: ¶ 0055 showing in response to the request to link reservation prior to entry, “The server may then open the ticket on the point of sale system using the proper table number based on this information” – wherein as per ¶ 0076-0080 there is a ticket record which stores a listing of tickets and confirmation of the linked ticket record; alternatively, also see ¶ 0049 showing “The check-in module 106 may be configured to allow a user to check-in to the system and access and/or manage one or more reservations and/or the user's account. Reservations may be made in numerous ways including through calling a business, emailing the business, and/or through software. The check-in module 106 may manage any reservations comprising time, date, location, and service requested of a business”);
a plurality of checks tabulated for services ordered by customers, said tabulated service checks stored on said database according to confirmation (McGregor: ¶ 0086, ¶ 0127 showing calculating a tab associated with each customer’s open ticket, i.e. associated with the confirmation, in real-time which may be updated as items are ordered – noting as per ¶ 0055 above a ticket was created which was linked to the user’s reservation/table and ¶ 0076-0080 showing a record having a listing of tickets; also see ¶ 0113, ¶ 0133 showing tabs linked to the tickets for each of the customers);
an application program accessible by both the customers and the businesses (McGregor: ¶ 0047 “ Through integration of the software with both the user's mobile computing device, as well as the venue's POS system, the two devices may interact in a multitude of ways”), said application program in data communication with said database and with a restaurant app displayed at a user device (McGregor: ¶ 0040-0043, ¶ 0054-0059, ¶ 0085, Figs. 6D-6F showing mobile application is both used by the restaurant for tracking open POS tickets and tabs associated with the customers, and used by the user device to make reservations, check-in, and make payments for the items accumulated on the customers’ tabs):
With respect to the following limitation, McGregor does not explicitly teach sending a transportation request based upon the reservation/confirmation information – however, Bijor teaches:
a plurality of transport receipts for delivery of customers to businesses, said transport receipts stored on said database according to confirmation (Bijor: ¶ 0039-0040, ¶ 0059, ¶ 0061 showing database storing trip entries associated with a plurality of users and in relation to event information indicating a user’s acceptance to attend an event, with ¶ 0061 showing “The trip entry can include the ID of the user, the ID of the service provider, information about the pickup location, information about the destination location, the vehicle type, information about the payment instrument of the user, price parameters associated with the trip, and/or price information, if any, associated with the specified event (e.g., a price amount or discount that may be applied to the trip in connection with the user accepting or ordering a seat(s) at the event)”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included storing of Bijor in the reservation system of McGregor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “other parties may want to leverage the network system to share data with users and/or service providers that use the network service” (Bijor: ¶ 0002) and “to facilitate user participation in events in conjunction with arranging transport services” (Bijor: ¶ 0027). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the following limitations, Bijor also teaches that an event provider (restaurant) may offer a discount on the event seat reservation itself or a discount on a transport service provided to the user, if the parameters of the transport service meet certain conditions such as dropping the user off within a threshold distance and within a time period before the start of the event (restaurant reservation) (Bijor: ¶ 0035, ¶ 0043, ¶ 0050, ¶ 0076, ¶ 0082) and creates trip entries in the trips database (Bijor: ¶ 0039-0040, ¶ 0059, ¶ 0061) – however, to the extent that McGregor/Bijor do not explicitly teach all of the following, Karambatsos teaches:
at least one transport discount rules accessible to said computer (Karambatsos: ¶ 0057 for example “the consumer must satisfy certain conditions in order to benefit from the discount provided by the transportation based offer, which are described in more detail below. Conditions may include, for example, periods of time within which the transportation based offer is made available to the consumer, and specific transportation modes (such as, for example, subway fares and taxi fares only) with respect to which a merchant is prepared to make a transportation based offer (referred to as qualified transportation modes). If the consumer fails to comply with the conditions of the transportation based offer, he/she cannot take advantage of the discount” wherein as per ¶ 0065, ¶ 076, ¶ 0080, ¶ 0088-0090 showing offers and their associated conditions are stored in offers database; see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 showing accessible to computers/servers);
a discounted check generated by deducting, according to said at least one transport discount rule, at least a portion of said transport receipt from the tabulated service check sharing the same confirmation (Karambatsos: ¶ 0131-0133 showing offer including rules in which a qualified transportation cost will be deducted from cost of a meal at a restaurant, i.e. a check for $30 is discounted by the cost of the transportation service, $10, the consumer only pays the restaurant $20 plus tip and gratuities calculated on pre-deduction amount, according the rules of the offer; see ¶ 0111 specifying “The redeeming of the offer can be performed by the merchant or automatically by the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30. In an alternative embodiment, all transfer of money, awarding of points, issuing of certificates, etc., may be accomplished by the system for providing transportation or other activity based offers 30”); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included transport rules for qualifying for offers, and redeeming of the offer to discount a restaurant check by the transportation cost according to offer rules and the proof of payment of Karambatsos in the reservation system of McGregor/Bijor with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “There is currently no method or system available which conditions both (i) the moment of redemption or application of a discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion in relation to the purchase or procurement of goods and/or services, as well as (ii) the moment of availability to individuals of such discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion, by (iii) limiting both the redemption and the availability of such discount, coupon, voucher, incentive or promotion to optimal moments dynamically established and customized by a commercial establishment in a way that enables such merchant to optimally allocate its human capital and operating resources, and (iv) which limits a key risk inherent to traditional group discount models, which is that the customer acquisition cost (CAC) under such models is generally incurred before the effective return on investment (ROI) associated with such cost is realized or known (including as a result of the unknown breakage rate at the time a merchant consents to the sale of an offer) while (v) minimizing brand dilution. Thus there is a clear need for such a method or system” (Karambatsos: ¶ 0025).
McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
said application program receiving said discounted check from one of said businesses and transmitting said discounted check to said restaurant app (McGregor: ¶ 0086 showing the user receives and may view his/her individual bill or tab, including a total amount due; wherein as per ¶ 0120 a discount may be applied to a current check for billing and payment – “the system allows for the tracking of points and credits through the mobile application that can be used for promotional, discount, and marketing efforts. The points and/or credits may be stored in the user's profile. The server may keep track of points accrued through use of the application and apply these points to different interactions that can take place inside the application. In one example of a use of this system, a user may accrue points for each dollar spent through the application. The user can then redeem the points for a discount, which can be applied through the mobile application, towards a current or future bill/payment); and
payment of the discounted check received from a customer through said restaurant app (McGregor: ¶ 0088 “At any point, the user can pay his/her entire bill or a portion of his/her bill by wirelessly sending a pay bill request from the client computing device to the server”; see ¶ 0054 specifying the user/client device interacts through the mobile application for viewing and paying the bill)
Claim 21: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 19. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
further comprising a plurality of mobile computing devices, each of said mobile computing devices executing said application program (McGregor: Fig. 1, and ¶ 0046, ¶ 0054, ¶ 0059, ¶ 0064 showing plurality of client computing platforms that customers use to interface with the system, which may each be a mobile device running the mobile application)
Claim 22: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 21. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein customers use one of said mobile computing devices to request the service appointment (McGregor: ¶ 0055 showing reservation through the mobile application)
Claim 23: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 21. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein business uses one of said mobile computing devices to confirm service appointment requests (McGregor: ¶ 0078-0080 showing transmitting generated ticket affiliated with a user, i.e. confirmation – which as per ¶ 0055 above may be in response to the reservation request, e.g. “ The mobile application may request that the server to connect with a reservation system to link a reservation made by the patron prior to entering the venue with a table number entered on the reservation system. The server may then open the ticket on the point of sale system using the proper table number based on this information”; also note ¶ 0134 showing confirmation of the linked user and ticket)
Claim 24: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 19. McGregor, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein said computer and said database are provided as Internet-based services (McGregor: Fig. 1, ¶ 0046-0064 - ¶ 0060 specifically showing “The server(s) 102, 114 client computing platform(s) 128, and/or external resource(s) 130 may be operatively linked via one or more electronic communication links. For example, such electronic communication links may be established, at least in part, via a network 126 such as the Internet and/or other networks”)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015081060 A1 to McGregor et al. (McGregor) in view of US 20170351977 A1 to Bijor et al. (Bijor), further in view of US 20170249653 A1 to Karambatsos, and further in view of US 20060259353 A1 to Guttman.
Claim 4: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 3. With respect to the following limitations, McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos do not explicitly teach, however, Guttman teaches:
wherein said third party contribution is provided from the group comprising: a transport service subsidy, a government subsidy, a non-profit subsidy, a business association subsidy, a business software subsidy, and combinations of these (Guttman: ¶ 0073 showing a fee for transportation may be subsidized by a third party, e.g. “the fee may be subsidized by the federal government. In another embodiment the fee may be subsidized by a state government. In another embodiment the fee may be subsidized by a local government. In another embodiment the fee may be subsidized by a city authority. All of these options are provided by way of example and are not intended to limit the numerous fee or subsidy paradigms available to be used in accordance with the present invention”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the subsidy of a transportation cost as taught by Guttman in the reservation system of McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015081060 A1 to McGregor et al. (McGregor) in view of US 20170351977 A1 to Bijor et al. (Bijor), further in view of US 20170249653 A1 to Karambatsos, and further in view of US 20080049920 A1 to Napoleoni et al. (Napoleoni).
Claim 7: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 6. With respect to the following limitations, while Karambatsos teaches generating the service check and discounted service as per claim 6 above, McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos do not explicitly teach a CRM generating and storing the bill information for the customer. However, Napoleoni teaches:
wherein said tabulated service check and said discounted service check are stored in a service business CRM system (Napoleoni: ¶ 0033 showing “A CRM system 14 manages customer relationships in an organized manner so that management, sales people, customer service representatives, and perhaps even customers themselves, may directly access information regarding purchased products, available offers, hardware and other service delivery requirements, and so forth. CRM 14 may be provided by a commercially available customer relationship management package such as Siebel provided by Oracle The billing system 18 provides invoicing and accounting functions for the products and services delivered to customers. The functions of the Billing system may include maintaining billing data, maintaining a catalog of available products and services, maintaining rates and applying discounts, aggregating recurrent charges and usage charges, generating customer bills, and so forth”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a CRM system of Napoleoni in the reservation system of McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “management, sales people, customer service representatives, and perhaps even customers themselves, may directly access information regarding purchased products, available offers, hardware and other service delivery requirements” (Napoleoni: ¶ 0033).
Claim 15: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 6. With respect to the following limitation, McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos do not explicitly teach, however, Napoleoni teaches:
wherein patron eligibility is determined by CRM functionality associated with said service business computer (Napoleoni: ¶ 0033 showing “A CRM system 14 manages customer relationships in an organized manner so that management, sales people, customer service representatives, and perhaps even customers themselves, may directly access information regarding purchased products, available offers, hardware and other service delivery requirements, and so forth. CRM 14 may be provided by a commercially available customer relationship management package such as Siebel provided by Oracle The billing system 18 provides invoicing and accounting functions for the products and services delivered to customers. The functions of the Billing system may include maintaining billing data, maintaining a catalog of available products and services, maintaining rates and applying discounts, aggregating recurrent charges and usage charges, generating customer bills, and so forth”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the use of a CRM system for managing customer offers of Napoleoni in the reservation system of McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “management, sales people, customer service representatives, and perhaps even customers themselves, may directly access information regarding purchased products, available offers, hardware and other service delivery requirements” (Napoleoni: ¶ 0033).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015081060 A1 to McGregor et al. (McGregor) in view of US 20170351977 A1 to Bijor et al. (Bijor), further in view of US 20170249653 A1 to Karambatsos, and further in view of US 20190034905 A1 to Schlesinger et al. (Schlesinger).
Claim 10: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 6. With respect to the following limitation, McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos do not explicitly teach, however, Schlesinger teaches:
wherein said service business computer is connected to a transport computer by API (Schlesinger: ¶ 0057-0063, ¶ 0123-0124, ¶ 0162-0172 showing ridesharing platform and ridesharing API module in communication with merchant API module)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the connection of a ridesharing platform API module to a merchant computer/API module as taught by Schlesinger in the reservation system of McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11: McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos teach claim 6. With respect to the following limitation, McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos do not explicitly teach, however, Schlesinger teaches:
wherein said user device is connected to a transport computer by API (Schlesinger: ¶ 0057-0063, ¶ 0123-0124, ¶ 0162-0172 showing ridesharing platform and ridesharing API module in communication with customer application module)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the ridesharing platform and ridesharing API module in communication with customer application module as taught by Schlesinger in the reservation system of McGregor/Bijor/Karambatsos, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628