DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 2-11 in the Response to Restriction Requirement (“Response”) filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged. As requested in the Response, claims 1 and 12-21 have been cancelled, claims 2 8 and 11 have been amended, and claims 22-31 have been added.
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 2-11 and 22-31 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.” Claims 2-11 and 22-31 are directed to detecting a communication, accessing an identifier, performing a check-in and causing content to be provided, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process and a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 22 (and similarly claims 2 and 28) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method, comprising:
detecting, at least in part via a first wireless apparatus, a wireless communication signal emitted by a second wireless apparatus, wherein the second wireless apparatus is located in a drive through structure associated with an entity;
accessing, based on the detected wireless communication signal, an identifier of the second wireless apparatus;
performing, at least in part using the identifier of the second wireless apparatus, an electronic check-in between the first wireless apparatus and the second wireless apparatus; and
causing content associated with the entity to be provided at least in part via a first user interface of the first wireless apparatus.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a first wireless apparatus”, “a wireless communication signal”, and “a second wireless apparatus” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “first wireless apparatus”, “wireless communication signal”, and “second wireless apparatus” language, “detecting… a … communication …; accessing, based on the detected … communication …, an identifier …; performing, at least in part using the identifier …, an … check-in …; and causing content associated with the entity to be provided at least in part via a first user interface” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite eight additional elements – “a first wireless apparatus”, “a wireless communication signal”, “a second wireless apparatus”, “a vehicle” (claims 3 and 28), “a device” (claims 3 and 28), “a mounted display” (claim 4), “one or more mobile user devices” (claim 4) and “a processor” (claims 2 and 28). The “first wireless apparatus”, “wireless communication signal”, “second wireless apparatus”, “vehicle”, “device”, “mounted display”, “one or more mobile user devices”, and “processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “first wireless apparatus”, “wireless communication signal”, “second wireless apparatus”, “vehicle”, “device”, “mounted display”, “one or more mobile user devices”, and “processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “first wireless apparatus”, “wireless communication signal”, “second wireless apparatus”, “vehicle”, “device”, “mounted display”, “one or more mobile user devices”, and “processor” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-10, 22-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0138518 A1 to White et al. (“White”) in view of United States Patent No. 6,574,603 B1 to Dickson et al. (“Dickson”) and United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0258058 A1 to Carroll et al. (“Carroll”).
As per claims 2 and 22, the claimed subject matter that is met by White includes:
A system, comprising (White: Abstract)
a processor (White: ¶ 0007); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that are
executable by the processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising (White: ¶ 0007):
detecting, at least in part via a first wireless apparatus, a wireless communication signal emitted by a second wireless apparatus (White: ¶¶ 0043 and 0048);
accessing, based on the detected wireless communication signal, an identifier of the second wireless apparatus (White: ¶¶ 0043 and 0048); and
causing content associated with the entity to be provided at least in part via a first user interface of the first wireless apparatus (White: ¶¶ 0043-0044).
White fails to specifically teach 1.) wherein the second wireless apparatus is located in a drive through structure associated with an entity and 2.) performing, at least in part using the identifier of the second wireless apparatus, an electronic check-in between the first wireless apparatus and the second wireless apparatus. The Examiner provides Dickson to teach and disclose claimed feature 1.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Dickson includes:
wherein the second wireless apparatus is located in a drive through structure associated with an entity (Dickson: column 7, lines 1-34 and column 16, lines 50-62)
White teaches a system and method for communicating restaurant data between devices. Dickson teaches a comparable system and method for communicating restaurant data between devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Dickson offers the embodiment of wherein the second wireless apparatus is located in a drive through structure associated with an entity. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the drive through transponder as disclosed by Dickson to the transponder as taught by White for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
White and Dickson fail to specifically teach and 2.) performing, at least in part using the identifier of the second wireless apparatus, an electronic check-in between the first wireless apparatus and the second wireless apparatus. The Examiner provides Carroll to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Carroll includes:
performing, at least in part using the identifier of the second wireless apparatus, an electronic check-in between the first wireless apparatus and the second wireless apparatus (Carroll: ¶ 0052).
White and Dickson teach systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices. Carroll teaches a comparable system and method for communicating restaurant data between devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Carroll offers the embodiment of performing, at least in part using the identifier of the second wireless apparatus, an electronic check-in between the first wireless apparatus and the second wireless apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the check-in as disclosed by Carroll to the systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices as taught by White and Dickson for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claims 3 and 23, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson and Carroll includes:
wherein the system comprises a vehicle, and wherein the first wireless apparatus is a part of the vehicle or comprises a device inside the vehicle (Dickson: column 17, lines 49-58).
The motivation for combining the teachings of White, Dickson and Carroll are discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 22, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson and Carroll includes:
wherein the device inside the vehicle comprises a mounted display of the vehicle or one or more mobile user devices located inside the vehicle (Dickson: column 17, lines 49-58).
The motivation for combining the teachings of White, Dickson and Carroll are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 7 and 24, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson and Carroll includes:
wherein the operations further comprise causing the system to facilitate a transaction between the entity and a user based on user input involving the content, wherein the user input is received through the first user interface (White: ¶ 0045).
The motivation for combining the teachings of White, Dickson and Carroll are discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 22, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 9 and 26, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson and Carroll includes:
wherein the wireless communication signal comprises a directional signal that is range-limited (White: ¶ 0037).
The motivation for combining the teachings of White, Dickson and Carroll are discussed in the rejection of claims 2 and 22, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson and Carroll includes:
wherein the wireless communication signal comprises a Bluetooth signal (White: ¶ 0037).
The motivation for combining the teachings of White, Dickson and Carroll are discussed in the rejection of claim 2, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 5, 6, 11 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Dickson and Carroll as applied in claims 2 and 22, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0279098 A1 to Ham (“Ham”).
As per claim 5, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson and Carroll includes:
wherein the device comprises the mounted display (Dickson: column 7, lines 43-56 and column 10, lines 20-32)
White, Dickson and Carroll fail to specifically teach wherein the device comprises the mounted display and the one or more mobile user devices, and wherein the content associated with the entity is provided to both the mounted display and the one or more mobile user devices. The Examiner provides Ham to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Ham includes:
wherein the device comprises the mounted display and the one or more mobile user devices, and wherein the content associated with the entity is provided to both the mounted display and the one or more mobile user devices (Ham: ¶¶ 0009-0013)
White, Dickson and Carroll teach systems and methods for displaying restaurant data on mobile devices. Ham teaches a comparable system and method for displaying restaurant data on mobile devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Ham offers the embodiment of wherein the device comprises the mounted display and the one or more mobile user devices, and wherein the content associated with the entity is provided to both the mounted display and the one or more mobile user devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the one or more mobile user devices as disclosed by Ham to the systems and methods for displaying restaurant data on mobile devices as taught by White, Dickson and Carroll for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for displaying restaurant data on mobile devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham includes:
wherein the one or more mobile user devices include a plurality of mobile user devices, and wherein the operations further comprise updating the content based on input received from each mobile user device of the plurality of mobile user devices (Ham: ¶¶ 0009-0010 and 0013).
The motivation for combining the teachings of White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and are incorporated herein.
As per claims 11 and 27, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham includes:
wherein executing the instructions further causes the operations further comprise causing the system to cause the content provided via the first user interface to be synchronized to the content provided via a second user interface associated with the entity (Ham: ¶¶ 0009-0010 and 0013)
The motivation for combining the teachings of White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham are discussed in the rejection of claim 5, and are incorporated herein.
Claims 8 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Dickson and Carroll as applied in claims 2 and 22, and further in view of United States Patent No. 9,736,541 B1 to Nijim et al. (“Nijim”).
As per claims 8 and 25, White, Dickson and Carroll fail to specifically teach wherein executing the instructions further causes-the operations further comprise causing the system to disconnect the first wireless apparatus from the second wireless apparatus after the transaction has been completed. The Examiner provides Nijim to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Nijim includes:
wherein executing the instructions further causes-the operations further comprise causing the system to disconnect the first wireless apparatus from the second wireless apparatus after the transaction has been completed (Nijim: column 7, lines 50-63)
White, Dickson and Carroll teach systems and methods of connecting to mobile devices. Nijim teaches a comparable system and method of connecting to mobile devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Nijim offers the embodiment of wherein executing the instructions further causes-the operations further comprise causing the system to disconnect the first wireless apparatus from the second wireless apparatus after the transaction has been completed. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the automatic disconnect as disclosed by Nijim to the connections as taught by White, Dickson and Carroll for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of connecting to mobile devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Claims 28, 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Dickson, Carroll and Ham.
As per claim 28, the claimed subject matter that is met by White includes:
A system, comprising (White: Abstract):
a processor (White: ¶ 0007); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising (White: ¶ 0007):
detecting, at least in part via a first wireless apparatus, a wireless communication signal emitted by a second wireless apparatus, and wherein the wireless communication signal comprises a directional signal that is range limited or a Bluetooth signal (White: ¶¶ 0043, 0045 and 0048);
accessing, based on the detected wireless communication signal, an identifier of the second wireless apparatus (White: ¶¶ 0043 and 0048); and
causing a first content associated with the entity to be provided at least in part via a first user interface of the first wireless apparatus (White: ¶¶ 0043-0044).
White fails to specifically teach 1.) a first wireless apparatus that comprises a part of a vehicle or a device inside a vehicle, 2.) wherein the second wireless apparatus is located in a drive through structure associated with an entity, 3.) performing, at least in part using the identifier of the second wireless apparatus, an electronic check-in between the first wireless apparatus and the second wireless apparatus and 4.) wherein the first content is synchronized to a second content provided via a second user interface associated with the entity. The Examiner provides Dickson to teach and disclose claimed features 1-2.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Dickson includes:
a first wireless apparatus that comprises a part of a vehicle or a device inside a vehicle (Dickson: column 7, lines 1-34 and column 16, lines 50-62)
wherein the second wireless apparatus is located in a drive through structure associated with an entity (Dickson: column 7, lines 1-34 and column 16, lines 50-62)
White teaches a system and method for communicating restaurant data between devices. Dickson teaches a comparable system and method for communicating restaurant data between devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Dickson offers the embodiment of a first wireless apparatus that comprises a part of a vehicle or a device inside a vehicle and wherein the second wireless apparatus is located in a drive through structure associated with an entity. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the device in vehicle and drive through transponder as disclosed by Dickson to the device and transponder as taught by White for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
White and Dickson fail to specifically teach 3.) performing, at least in part using the identifier of the second wireless apparatus, an electronic check-in between the first wireless apparatus and the second wireless apparatus and 4.) wherein the first content is synchronized to a second content provided via a second user interface associated with the entity. The Examiner provides Carroll to teach and disclose claimed feature 3.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Carroll includes:
performing, at least in part using the identifier of the second wireless apparatus, an electronic check-in between the first wireless apparatus and the second wireless apparatus (Carroll: ¶ 0052).
White and Dickson teach systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices. Carroll teaches a comparable system and method for communicating restaurant data between devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Carroll offers the embodiment of performing, at least in part using the identifier of the second wireless apparatus, an electronic check-in between the first wireless apparatus and the second wireless apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the check-in as disclosed by Carroll to the systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices as taught by White and Dickson for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
White, Dickson and Carroll fail to specifically teach 4.) wherein the first content is synchronized to a second content provided via a second user interface associated with the entity. The Examiner provides Ham to teach and disclose claimed feature 4.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Ham includes:
wherein the first content is synchronized to a second content provided via a second user interface associated with the entity (Ham: ¶¶ 0009-0013).
White, Dickson and Carroll teach systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices. Ham teaches a comparable system and method for communicating restaurant data between devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Ham offers the embodiment of wherein the first content is synchronized to a second content provided via a second user interface associated with the entity. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of syncing restaurant data between devices as disclosed by Ham to the systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices as taught by White, Dickson and Carroll for the predicted result of improved systems and methods for communicating restaurant data between devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 29, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham includes:
wherein the operations further comprise facilitating a transaction between the entity and a user based on user input involving the first content, wherein the user input is received through the first user interface (White: ¶ 0045).
The motivation for combining the teachings of White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham are discussed in the rejection of claim 28, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 31, the claimed subject matter that is met by White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham includes:
wherein the first wireless apparatus is the device inside the vehicle, and wherein the operations further comprise updating the first content based on input received from the device inside the vehicle (Ham: ¶¶ 0009-0013).
The motivation for combining the teachings of White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham are discussed in the rejection of claim 28, and are incorporated herein.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Dickson, Carroll and Ham as applied in claim 28, and further in view of Nijim.
As per claim 30, White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham fail to specifically teach wherein the operations further comprise causing the first wireless apparatus to disconnect from the second wireless apparatus after the transaction has been completed. The Examiner provides Nijim to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Nijim includes:
wherein the operations further comprise causing the first wireless apparatus to disconnect from the second wireless apparatus after the transaction has been completed (Nijim: column 7, lines 50-63)
White, Dickson, Carroll and Ham teach systems and methods of connecting to mobile devices. Nijim teaches a comparable system and method of connecting to mobile devices that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Nijim offers the embodiment of wherein the operations further comprise causing the first wireless apparatus to disconnect from the second wireless apparatus after the transaction has been completed. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the automatic disconnect as disclosed by Nijim to the connections as taught by White, Dickson and Carroll for the predicted result of improved systems and methods of connecting to mobile devices. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627