DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
2/26/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claim 1 was amended.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) have been withdrawn. Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 6-8 that claim 1 as amended recites specific technical elements that provide a concrete technological solution for coordinating meal sharing between cooks and users, rather than merely organizing human activity. To support this conclusion, applicant states: server's processing of location and timing data to filter and display relevant meal options represents a specific technological solution; the multi-parameter database filtering system represents a specific technical implementation for managing and presenting meal data; the automatic calculation of meal pricing based on container size and type represents a specific technical function performed by the server; the rating-based sorting functionality represents a specific technical implementation for organizing and presenting meal data; and the communication module integrated with the app and server represents a specific technical architecture for facilitating user-cook interactions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Listing meals, filtering and searching meals, selecting a meal, notifying the cook, notifying the user when the meal is ready for pick up, calculating the price, and sorting by ratings are the focus of the claims. These activities fall squarely in managing interactions between people. The claimed use of the server’s processing of location and timing data to filter and display relevant meal options is just using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea of matching a meal/cook/user. There is no technological improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology. The same is true for the multi-parameter database filtering system and rating-based sorting. Using a database to sort by different criteria is a basic information organization and retrieval function. There is no technological improvement to the functioning of the database. The automatic calculation of meal pricing based on container size and type is merely a business rule for standardizing portions and pricing. It does not provide any technical improvement to a computer or other technology. The communication module integrated with the app and server is routine network application communication. There is no improvement to network communication recited.
Applicant argues on p. 8 that the combination of the alleged technical elements-location-based proximity algorithms, multi-parameter database filtering, standardized container-based pricing calculations, rating-based sorting, and integrated communication modules-represents an ordered combination that provides a specific technological solution to the problem of coordinating home-cooked meal sharing between distributed cooks and users. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed ordered combination to receive meal listings, store them, let users search and filter them, match by proximity or time, process selection, notify the cook, notify the user, calculate price, and sort by ratings is not an unconventional technical arrangement. It is a conventional technical arrangement applied to a certain method of organizing human activity, matching meal requests between cooks and users. Applying an abstract idea to a conventional technical arrangement does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejections.
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 that Zheng does not disclose the amended feature of “obtain delivery instructions for delivering ingredients to the cook for preparation of the requested meal.” Applicant’s argument is moot in light of the newly cited portion of Camacho in combination with Zheng to disclose this feature. Camacho [0125] “In FIG. 5B, a meal seeker can view a map where one or more meal provider is location. The map can also provide directions to the meal seeker on how to get to the meal provider's location” noting the directions to the cook’s location. Zheng [0046] “The consumer then has to select the delivery option 138, which can be the same as in FIG. 5 for the Order Cooked Food 130 option except that the consumer's subsequent selections are limited only to delivery to a desired location 140 … It is also possible to input a separate or additional desired location … that the same ingredients to be delivered to” corresponding to delivering ingredients for a particular meal. Camacho teaches the directions to the cook’s location, while Zheng teaches ingredient ordering and delivery for meal preparation. In combination, they disclose the amended feature and the rejection below is updated accordingly.
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 1-12 and 14 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (system). Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-12 and 14 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea by reciting […] receive […] that includes meal data […], wherein the meal data includes cook information corresponding to a cook […] and meal information corresponding to a home-cooked meal; […] and make the meal data available for search and selection by a user […] that allows the user to sort or filter the meals displayed, wherein the sort filter includes genre of food, portion size, cost, location, time for pickup, cook rating and the combinations thereof, allowing the user to parse through the meal data matching the criteria of the search request; receive […] that includes a search request information for a meal […]; automatically process the search request information using location-based algorithms that calculate proximity between user location and cook pickup locations, and send for display […] the meal data […], including the cook information and the meal information, wherein the processing includes filtering based on location and time for pickup; receive […] that includes a meal selection from the user […] and automatically process the meal selection; send a notification to the cook […] that the meal request is a request for a meal corresponding to the meal data sent to the […] from the cook […]; and send an alert to the user […] to inform the user of a timing of readiness of the meal and a location of pickup of the meal, wherein the cook sends information regarding readiness of the meal being prepared and ordered by the user, wherein the user may request from the cook a particular meal to be prepared by the cook and obtain delivery instructions for delivering ingredients to the cook for preparation of the requested meal, wherein the system further comprises a plurality of standardized meal containers having predetermined portion sizes, wherein these portion sizes may be varied depending on the type of food being prepared and shared; the system standardizes the portions sizes to provide predictable amounts of food that a user can expect to receive when placing an order for a meal using the system; […] automatically calculates meal pricing based on container size and type: and wherein […] implements a rating system that allows for rating cooks, wherein the rating may be utilized by the system to sort meals that a user may want.
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims receive a search request for a meal from a user and display the results of the request based on criteria matching in the request and process a selection for a meal to be cooked by a cook for the user which is managing interactions between people.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a user computing device; a cook computing device; a server having a memory, wherein the user computing device and the cook computing device are coupled to the server through a connection established by an app operating on each of the user computing device and the cook computing device; automatically store the meal data in a memory of the server … operating the user computing device using a database system; a signal; wherein the app includes a module that enables the user to communicate with the cook through the server;) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP
2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps to “receive” meal data, “store” meal data, “receive” a search request, “process” the search request, “receive” a meal selection, “send” a notification, and “send” an alert (example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-12 and 14 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
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 1, 4-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Camacho et al., US Publication No. 2019/0043143 A1, hereinafter, Camacho in view of
Veetil et al., US 20180247228 A1, hereinafter Veetil, in view of
Near et al., US Publication No. 20060191885 A1, hereinafter Near, in further view of
Zheng et al., US Publication No. 20180046997 A1, hereinafter Zheng. As per,
Claim 1
A meal sharing system comprising:
a user computing device; a cook computing device; and (Camacho fig. 1; [0059] “providing a meal cooked by a meal provider to a meal seeker. An exemplary system is depicted in FIG. 1. In the exemplary system, meal providers and meal seekers do not directly communicate with each other. Instead, they each use networked devices 10 to communicate with a remote server 20 via network 100”)
a server having a memory, wherein the user computing device and the cook computing device are coupled to the server through a connection established by an app operating on each of the user computing device and the cook computing device, and wherein the server is programmed to: (Camacho fig. 1; [0059] “providing a meal cooked by a meal provider to a meal seeker. An exemplary system is depicted in FIG. 1. In the exemplary system, meal providers and meal seekers do not directly communicate with each other. Instead, they each use networked devices 10 to communicate with a remote server 20 via network 100”)
receive a signal that includes meal data from the cook computing device, wherein the meal data includes cook information corresponding to a cook operating the cook computing device and meal information corresponding to a home-cooked meal; (Camacho fig. 2C noting the Meal provider communication information on meal options to the remote server; [0069] “at steps 102 and 104, database of meal providers … can be established … the database is established using information submitted by a meal provider”)
[…];
receive a signal that includes a search request information for a meal from the user computing device; (Camacho [0018] “the one or more food preferences are selected from the group consisting of location;” [0061] “At step 110, a meal seeker sends a meal request to a remote server, using, for example, an interface on a mobile app on a cell phone”)
automatically process the search request information using location-based algorithms that calculate proximity between user location and cook pickup locations, and send for display on the user computing device the meal data stored in the server, including the cook information and the meal information, wherein the processing includes filtering based on location and time for pickup; (Camacho [0062] “At step 120, once the meal request is received at the remote server, the system launches a search of existing available meal options by matching or substantially matching criteria from the meal request with description of such existing available meal options. Available meal options that meet the criteria of the meal request will be combined to form a list of available meal options. The list will be sent to the meal seeker in a ranked or non-ranked format … if location is the top priority, only meal options within a specified distance will be presented to the meal seeker” note the distance considered in the search request; [0061] “the meal request specifies when the meal should be ready for pick-up. In some embodiments, the meal request includes food allergy information of the meal seeker. In some embodiments, a meal seeker can specify a location where he or she would like to pick up the food. The specified location can be the place the meal seeker is currently at or a place where the meal seeker will be at a later time. In some embodiments, the geographic location of the meal seeker will be determined automatically using, for example, a GPS location enabled device such as a smart phone. Additionally, the location of a meal seeker can be determined automatically based on affiliations with a wireless network, and/or a cellular network” noting the current location and meal timing availability included in the processing of the request)
receive a signal that includes a meal selection from the user computing device and automatically process the meal selection; (Camacho [0066] “At step 140, the meal seeker browses through the result on a networked device and selects a meal option. The selected is then transmitted to the remote server via network connection.”)
send a notification to the cook computing device that the meal request is a request for a meal corresponding to the meal data sent to the system from the cook computing device; and (Camacho [0067] “At step 150, a meal provider associated with the selected meal option will be notified”)
[…] a location of pickup of the meal, […], (Camacho [0125] “In FIG. 5B, a meal seeker can view a map where one or more meal provider is location. The map can also provide directions to the meal seeker on how to get to the meal provider's location”)
[…] wherein the app includes a module that enables the user to communicate with the cook through the server, wherein the user may request from the cook a particular meal to be prepared by the cook and […] (Camacho [0063] “when no existing meal options match or substantially match a particular meal request, the remote server can send a system request to one or more meal providers to solicit availability for make a meal according to the meal request;” [0125] “In FIG. 5B, a meal seeker can view a map where one or more meal provider is location. The map can also provide directions to the meal seeker on how to get to the meal provider's location.”)
[…]
[…] obtain delivery instructions […] to the cook […], (Camacho [0125] “In FIG. 5B, a meal seeker can view a map where one or more meal provider is location. The map can also provide directions to the meal seeker on how to get to the meal provider's location” noting the directions to the cook’s location)
wherein the server implements a rating system that allows for rating cooks, wherein the rating may be utilized by the system to sort meals that a user may want (Camacho [0074] “a meal seeker can review the dishes prepared by a meal provider and give the meal provider a star rating;” [0062] “In some embodiments, the available meal options will be ranked by reviews of the providers of such meal options” note the cook ratings and the ranking of meals based on those ratings)
Camacho does not explicitly teach, Veetil however in the analogous art of food preparation teaches
automatically store the meal data in a memory of the server and make the meal data available for search and selection by a user operating the user computing device using a database system that allows the user to sort or filter the meals displayed, wherein the sort filter includes genre of food, portion size, cost, location, time for pickup, cook rating and the combinations thereof, allowing the user to parse through the meal data matching the criteria of the search request; (Veetil [0036] “As an exemplary embodiment of the cook-neighbor reservation system 39, 49, an available inventory of cook profiles stored in a cook profile system is provided, whereby cook profiles define cook offerings, said cook offerings defining at least one of the following: location, time, activity, place of origin, cooking preferential, cost, type of cuisine, delivery options, cook rating;” [0060] “the user is able to see all the posts from the various chef's. The user is further able to narrow or sort the search using keywords 73, for example, ‘Thai food’, ‘vegetarian’, ‘gluten free’ etc., as well as sort by at least one of, the distance, price, rating, delivery options 74. As shown in FIG. 7B, in yet another embodiment of the invention, the user's may also narrow the search based on ratings of the cooks” note the user able to sort and filter the meal options)
the server automatically calculates meal pricing based on container size and type; and (Veetil [0041] “a means to receive aggregated data, apply pricing rules to the aggregated data to calculate in real-time a dynamic price, whereby said dynamic price is calculated by a pricing module. The pricing module may take into account any one of the following factors: meal event preference, cost index”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Camacho’s food sharing server to include sorting and filtering meal search results in view of Veetil in an effort to provide a marketplace for home cooked food based on sophisticated criteria matching (see Veetil ¶ [0010] & MPEP 2143G).
Camacho / Veetil do not explicitly teach, Near however in the analogous art of food preparation teaches
send an alert to the user computing device to inform the user of a timing of readiness of the meal and […] wherein the cook sends information regarding readiness of the meal being prepared and ordered by the user, […] wherein the system further comprises a plurality of standardized meal containers having predetermined portion sizes, wherein these portion sizes may be varied depending on the type of food being prepared and shared; the system standardizes the portions sizes to provide predictable amounts of food that a user can expect to receive when placing an order for a meal using the system; (Near fig. 1; [0035] “The computer control interface 12 may be wirelessly or non-wirelessly interconnected with remote input/output devices (e.g. remote control devices) via the public telephone lines or any known technique (e.g., wireless local area network (LAN), IrDA, Bluetooth, FireWire, etc.), or through a network system via any number of switches, such as a LAN, a wide area network (WAN), an intranet, an extranet, the Internet, etc., to enable a user to wirelessly or non-wirelessly remotely control the system through appropriate control signals;” [0049] “The cooking code may also include cooling time and my provide a signal to indicate the meal package is ready to be retrieved by the user;” [0039] “Meal packages, as used herein, refer to self contained packages of food material, where each package may be divided into plural sections, and the sections may be provided with any combination of meat, vegetables, starch, fish, soup, etc. … The meal packages may be configured in a variety of standardized dimensions (e.g., three or more size ranges) according to the desires of the user and/or service provider” note the standardized meal containers having portion sizes)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Camacho’s food sharing server and Veetil’s sorting/filtering options to include alerting a user of the readiness timing of the meal in view of Near in an effort to reduce time spent preparing, cooking, and tracking food (see Near ¶ [0039] & MPEP 2143G).
Camacho / Veetil / Near do not explicitly teach, Zheng however in the analogous art of food preparation teaches
[…] for delivering ingredients […] for preparation of the requested meal, […] (Zheng fig. 11 note the flowchart for ordering ingredients including a step to input a specific location to deliver the ingredients; [0045] “FIG. 11 illustrates the steps for order ingredients 134;” [0046] “The consumer then has to select the delivery option 138, which can be the same as in FIG. 5 for the Order Cooked Food 130 option except that the consumer's subsequent selections are limited only to delivery to a desired location 140 … It is also possible to input a separate or additional desired location … that the same ingredients to be delivered to” corresponding to delivering ingredients for a particular meal)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Camacho’s food sharing server, Veetil’s sorting/filtering options, and Near’s food readiness to include delivering ingredients in view of Zheng in an effort to facilitate peer to peer transactions for busy consumers and chefs (see Zheng ¶ [0008] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 4
Camacho / Veetil / Zheng do not explicitly teach, Near however in the analogous art of food preparation teaches
further comprising a plurality of uniformly-sized meal containers, wherein the cook may place the meal into one of the plurality of uniformly-sized meal containers. (Near [0039] "comprising a plurality of uniformly-sized meal containers, wherein the cook may place the meal into one of the plurality of uniformly sized meal containers.")
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Camacho / Veetil / Zheng with/and the teachings of Near are presented in the examining of claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 5
Camacho / Veetil / Zheng do not explicitly teach, Near however in the analogous art of food preparation teaches
wherein each of the plurality of uniformly-sized meal containers is segmented. (Near [0039] "Meal packages, as used herein, refer to self-contained packages of food material, where each package may be divided into plural sections, and the sections may be provided with any combination of meat, vegetables, starch, fish, soup. etc.").
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Camacho / Veetil / Zheng with/and the teachings of Near are presented in the examining of claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 6
Camacho teaches
wherein the meal information includes a cost associated with the meal. (Camacho [0027] “the one or more food preferences are selected from the group consisting of … price”)
Claim 7
Camacho teaches
wherein the cook information includes a rating of the cook, a review of the cook, or a rating and a review of the cook. (Camacho fig. 5C; [0126] “FIG. 5C shows an exemplary profile page of a meal provider. The page includes a tag "Cook For U," which identifies that this is the profile of a meal provider. The page also includes the address of the meal profile, a picture of a dish prepared by the meal provider, as well as multiple reviews from meal seekers who have previously requested this dish from the particular meal provider.”)
Claim 9
Camacho teaches
comprising a plurality of cook computing devices. (Camacho fig. 1; [0059])
Claim 11
Camacho teaches
wherein the app includes a module for allowing the user to rate one of a plurality of cooks operating a corresponding cook computing device of the plurality of cook computing devices and post comments associated with the rated cook. (Camacho [0074] “a meal provider profile also includes feedback information from a meal seeker; for example, a meal seeker can review the dishes prepared by a meal provider and give the meal provider a star rating”)
Claim 12
Camacho teaches
wherein the server is further programmed to send a list of available meals, each of the list of available meals being associated with a cook of the plurality of cooks, wherein the list is sorted according to a rating of each corresponding cook. (Camacho [0062] “the available meal options will be ranked by reviews of the providers of such meal options”)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Camacho in view of Veetil in view of Near in view of Zheng in further view of
Hernblad, US Publication No. 20040054592 A1, hereinafter Hernblad. As per,
Claim 2
Camacho teaches
wherein the server is further programmed to receive a signal that includes payment information from the user computing device, wherein the payment information includes stored payment system data of the user; (Camacho [0072] “A meal seeker profile is associated with a payment method”)
Camacho / Veetil / Near / Zheng do not explicitly teach, Hernblad however in the analogous art of food preparation teaches
automatically process the payment information; (Hernblad [0152] "Then, after the customer has selected all of the items to add to his/her order [30], in accordance with the Order Processing Logic in FIG. 8.3.1 :steps 25-100, he/she then selects his/her method of payment [40]. If the customer selects the cashless payment medium [50:cashless], then he/she inputs or transfers his/her cashless payment medium (or its information) into the terminal [60].")
charge an electronic payment from the user; and (Hernblad [0152] ''The cashless payment medium is then validated and the amount of the customer's order is charged to the medium [70]. If the cashless payment medium has been accepted [80:yes], then the logic proceeds as described in the "Post Payment Logic" section below.")
send the electronic payment to an account designated by the cook. (Hernblad [0210] "At the same time that the system asks the customer on his/her mobile device if a receipt is needed [100] and updates the customer's reward points [75], as described in FIG. 8.3.4, the system also sends the customer's order information and payment status to the establishment's in-house server [80] and the establishment begins to process the order [90]")
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Camacho’s food sharing server, Veetil’s sorting/filtering options, Near’s food readiness, and Zheng’s ingredients delivery to include automatically processing payment information electronically in view of Hernblad in an effort to allow for time saving cashes mobile payment (see Hernblad ¶ [0221] & MPEP 2143G).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Camacho in view of Veetil in view of Near in view of Zheng in further view of
Wiedl, US Publication No. 20110055044 A1, hereinafter Wiedl. As per,
Claim 3
Camacho / Veetil / Near / Zheng do not explicitly teach, Wiedl however in the analogous art of food preparation teaches
wherein the meal information includes ingredients for at least one dish forming a prepared meal. (Wiedl [0058] “In addition to recipe information 310, ingredients information 312 includes information representing ingredients that are used in recipes”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Camacho’s food sharing server, Veetil’s sorting/filtering options, Near’s food readiness, and Zheng’s ingredients delivery to include ingredients for a dish in view of Wiedl in an effort to identify possible allergies or personal preferences (see Wiedl ¶ [0051] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 10
Camacho teaches
wherein the server is further programmed to send for display on the user computing device a list of meals for selection being prepared by one of a plurality of cooks operating a corresponding cook computing device of the plurality of cook computing devices, (Camacho [0124] “FIGS. 5A-5C illustrates how a meal provider can be presented to potential meal seekers. In FIG. 5A, a meal seeker can flip through a list of meal providers by their specialties and numeric distance from the meal seeker.”)
Camacho / Near / Zheng do not explicitly teach, Wiedl however in the analogous art of food preparation teaches
wherein each meal of the list of meals corresponds to a particular date. (Wiedl [00148] “meal event information 304 represents information for a particular meal event, such as a dinner party. Information representing a meal, such as the kind of meal (e.g., dinner, brunch, lunch, barbeque or the like), the date and time of a meal”)
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Camacho / Veetil / Near / Zheng with/and the teachings of Wiedl are presented in the examining of claim 3 and incorporated herein.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Camacho in view of Veetil in view of Near in view of Zheng in further view of
Jordan et al, US Publication No. 2014/0136307 A1, hereinafter Jordan. As per,
Claim 8
Camacho teaches
[…],
wherein each available meal includes a common food type associated with the special event notification and has a corresponding pickup location located within a predetermined distance of the user computing device. (Camacho [0062] “if location is the top priority, only meal options within a specified distance will be presented to the meal seeker. If cuisine type is the top priority, only the specified cuisine types will be presented to the meal seeker.”)
Camacho / Veetil / Near / Zheng do not explicitly teach, Jordan however in the analogous art of special events teaches
wherein the server is further programmed to send for display on the user computing device a special event notification, wherein the special event notification includes a list of available meals for selection, (Jordan [0012] "The determination can be from the user purchasing a ticket for the event, indicating to the service provider that the user intends to be at the event, the user being detected at the event through a user device such as a smart phone, a user post on a social network, information from emails (such as scraping) indicating that the user has purchased a ticket or plans to be at the event, or any other suitable means;" [0013]"Next, at step 104, offers available for the user at the event are determined. Offers may be for virtually anything that can be purchased at the event. Examples include incentives, … for food;” [0020] "Using the various information obtained, the service provider can then present, at step 112, to the user, such as on the user device (e.g., smart phone), a map showing locations within the venue where the user can redeem offers or use incentives")
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Camacho’s food sharing server, Veetil’s sorting/filtering options, Near’s food readiness, and Zheng’s ingredients delivery to include special event notifications in view of Jordan in an effort to provide incentives for certain meals (see Jordan ¶ [0013] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Camacho in view of Veetil in view of Near in view of Zheng in further view of
Mager et al, US Publication No. 20020038356 A1, hereinafter Mager. As per,
Claim 14
Camacho / Veetil / Near / Zheng do not explicitly teach, Mager however in the analogous art of food services teaches
wherein the server is programmed to integrate with a property rental system, wherein the user may be an individual using the property rental system and accessing the meal sharing system through the property rental system. (Mager [0233] "The tenant administrator determines which vendors require order completion confirmation. For limousine service, or food orders, or other services where the tenant administrator's manual confirmation is not necessary, the tenant administrator selects automatic order completion confirmation.")
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Camacho’s food sharing server, Veetil’s sorting/filtering options, Near’s food readiness, and Zheng’s ingredients delivery to include integration with a property rental system in view of Mager in an effort to allow property administrators to manage the inclusion and categorization of vendors (see Mager ¶ [0093] & MPEP 2143G).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0232624 A1; WO 2004/097550 A2; Podmore et al., Fueling Sustainability: The Exponential Impact of Empowering Off-Grid Communities, 2016.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624