DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/12/2026 has been entered.
3. Acknowledgement is made to the amendment, filed 1/12/2026. Claims 1-9 & 12-15 have been canceled. Claims 16-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuettner (US 2020/0160263 A1) and Jones (US 2025/0182040 A1) .
Regarding claim 16, Kuettner discloses a method of using a barcode food delivery sealing system, the method comprising the following steps:
providing a barcode food delivery sealing system comprised of a food receptacle (610 – food container), a sticker comprised of a code, and a mobile application [0025, 0027, 0069, 0072, 0078-0081, & Fig. 8];
placing a food order into the food receptacle and sealing the food receptacle by placing the sticker onto the food receptacle, wherein thereinafter the food receptacle cannot be opened without damaging the sticker; scanning the code via a first smart device [0069 – disclosing “someone employed by the food source who is trained in the process applies one or more tamper proof seal devices…The trained employee understands the principles behind the process and knows where to apply tamper proof seal devices so that all the food items will be secure from access by anyone other than the customer, without breaking the tamper proof seal device or other visible signs of access…In step 530 the unique identifiers on the tamper proof seal device(s) applied to the food container(s) are uploaded to a third-party validator's database… the unique identifier can be machine readable, and the food source user interface…can be programmed with the capability to enter the unique identifier into the food source computer, using, for example a scanner or a camera…It is important that step 530 is done before step 540, which is when someone at the food source hands the food container(s) over to the person who will make the delivery. This is because this means that the food is sealed and inaccessible to the food delivery person without visibly damaging the tamper proof seal label or the food container”];
taking a first photo of the food receptacle and the sticker and uploading the first photo to the mobile application; picking up the food receptacle for delivery; scanning the code via a second smart device [0069 & 0094-0098 – disclosing “The driver user interface can be used to take and upload pictures of the food order with the packaging integrity intact…For added security, the process steps can include taking a photograph of each order after it has been sealed inside the tamper proof packaging with the unique identifier. This step provides photographic evidence that shows that the package has been properly sealed before it was given to anyone for delivery and guards against any allegations that the food was not properly packaged and sealed by the Restaurant User”];
taking a second photo of the food receptacle and the sticker and uploading the second photo to the mobile application; viewing the mobile application to view the first photo and the second photo to confirm the food receptacle delivered is the food receptacle in the first photo and in the second photo; comparing the first photo of the sticker to the second photo of the sticker to confirm that the food receptacle was delivered in an untampered manner [0069 & 0094-0098 - disclosing “The driver user interface can be used to take and upload pictures of the food order with the packaging integrity intact…taking photographs to show that the food container has been delivered intact and unopened”].
With respect to claim 16, the teachings of Kuettner have been discussed above.
Kuettner, directed to a system and method for providing a universal platform for secure food delivery [0001], discloses securing food delivery from a food source that sells food and that is delivered to a customer, the food source can be any business that prepares food that is ordered by a customer and the delivery can be handled by any service provider that arranges food deliveries [0016, 0018, & 0019]. Kuettner is silent with respect to explicitly disclosing wherein the mobile application comprises a user reward component consisting of a food discount and a delivery discount, as recited in claim 16.
Jones, directed to a method for order fulfillment [0006], teaches, regarding claim 16, wherein the mobile application comprises a user reward component consisting of a food discount and a delivery discount [0179 & 0180].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further employ the reward features of Jones within the system of Kuettner for at least the benefit of improving and promoting user engagement, user convenience, and generating more revenue [0180].
Regarding claim 17, Kuettner, as modified above, discloses the method of using a barcode food delivery sealing system of claim 16, wherein the code is comprised of a barcode or a QR code [0025, 0069, 0080, 0081, & Fig. 8].
Regarding claim 18, Kuettner, as modified above, discloses the method of using a barcode food delivery sealing system of claim 16, wherein the food receptacle is comprised of a container or a bag (710 - bag) [0079 & Fig. 7].
Regarding claim 19, Kuettner, as modified above, discloses the method of using a barcode food delivery sealing system of claim 16, wherein the sticker is comprised of an adhesive bottom surface [0025, 0069, 0080, 0081, & Fig. 8].
Regarding claim 20, Kuettner, as modified above, discloses the method of using a barcode food delivery sealing system of claim 18, wherein the container is comprised of a paper, a plastic, or a Styrofoam material [0079 & 0080].
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of the Remarks, filed 1/12/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant points out that Independent Claim 16 has been amended to include new limitations and mentions that these are taught in paragraphs [0023], [0029], and [0030] of the present Specification. However, the examiner has failed to find where Applicant provides arguments and/or remarks as to why these new limitations are not taught or met by the teachings of Kuettner and/or Jones. As discussed above with respect to the rejection of Independent Claim 16 above, the teachings of Kuettner clearly teaches the newly added claim limitations as currently amended and the combination with Jones is still obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a way for providing incentives thru discounts and savings as a reward for continued patronage, user loyalty, and user engagement. Kuettner clearly disclosing the application of a tamper proof seal “so that all the food items will be secure from access by anyone other than the customer, without breaking the tamper proof seal device or other visible signs of access”, in paragraph [0069], thereby meeting the amended claim limitation of “wherein thereafter the food receptacle cannot be opened without damaging the sticker”. Kuettner also clearly disclosing taking photos of the food “receptacle and the sticker” before and after delivery and “comparing the first photo of the sticker to the second photo of the sticker to confirm that the food receptacle was delivered in an untampered manner”, see paragraphs [0094-0098]. The claims have been rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL whose telephone number is (571)270-1301. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F,7-3 EST. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: paultep.savusdiphol@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G. Lee can be reached on (571) 272-2398. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/PAULTEP SAVUSDIPHOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876