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 .
Claims 1-19 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 reiterates the exact limitations of claim 7, but claim 9 depends from claim 8, which depends from claim 7, so claim 9 is redundant, and merely duplicates limitations already present in the chain of claims beginning with claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: At the end of the fifth line of claim 15, “beverage retailer;” should be followed by the word “and”. It would improve readability for the sixth line of claim 15 to be indented. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
First, it is determined under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 1-18 are directed to a method, and therefore fall within the statutory category of process. Claim 19 is directed to a system comprising, inter alia, at least one processor, and therefore falls within the statutory category of machine. Therefore, claims 1-19 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Claims 1-18 are directed to a method comprising: receiving “an electronic request from at least one user to purchase at least one alcoholic beverage”, and then performing further steps, including “causing the second delivery vehicle to deliver the at least one alcoholic beverage to the at least one user”; claim 19 recites that the processor is configured to cause corresponding operations to be performed. Therefore, claims 1-18 and claim 19 are directed to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Receiving a request to purchase an item, and arranging to deliver that item to the user who made the request falls squarely within commercial interactions. Such commercial or legal interactions fall within the grouping of abstract ideas, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Claims 1-19 are therefore directed to an abstract idea in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. (Step 2A, Prong One, for claims 1-19: YES)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two, claims 1-18 and 19 are not directed to any of the specific kinds of limitation that would establish patent eligibility, such as improvements in the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Claims 1-18 and 19 do not otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Representative claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, an electronic request from at least one user to purchase at least one alcoholic beverage;
determining, by the at least one processor and over a computer network, a location of the at least one user;
locating, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, a distributor or pool buyer carrying the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user, where the distributor or pool buyer is located within a first predetermined distance from the location of an alcoholic beverage retailer selling the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user;
locating, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, the alcoholic beverage retailer, where the alcoholic beverage retailer is located within a second predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user;
using the at least one processor and over the computer network, causing a first delivery vehicle to transfer the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer;
upon the transfer of the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer, using the at least one processor and over the computer network, causing a second delivery vehicle to obtain the at least one alcoholic beverage from the alcoholic beverage retailer; and
using the at least one processor and over the computer network, causing the second delivery vehicle to deliver the at least one alcoholic beverage to the at least one user.
The initial receiving step, the determining step, and the two locating steps involve the use of computer technology, but at a high level of generality, and do not recite improvements in the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The subsequent steps of causing the first and second delivery vehicles to carry out desired actions likewise do not recite technological improvements in delivery vehicles, computers, or anything else. Instead, essentially generic technical means are used to carry out commercial interactions. The same applies to parallel claim 19, and to claims 2-18, which depend from claim 1. (Step 2A, Prong Two, for claims 1-19: NO)
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Analysis under Step 2B is largely the same as analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two, and leads to the same conclusion of ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101; but there is also the question under Step 2B analysis of whether the claims add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field.
As may be seen above, claim 1 recites receiving, by at least one processor, an electronic request; and recites several steps as “by” or “using” “the at least one processor and over the computer network. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). This implies that a network itself must also be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein.” Hence, the at least one processor need be only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Based on the court decisions noted above, the steps of receiving and determining, and the three steps of causing the delivery vehicles to perform operations (either by presumably sending messages to a truck driver or similar human worker, or by transmitting messages to autonomous vehicles [it is mentioned in the instant specification that the vehicles can be unmanned aerial vehicles]) need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The two locating steps are not recited as using any particular technology beyond the processor and computer network. The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites that the electronic request further comprises a request to purchase at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage. This is not in itself technological. Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, recites locating by the at least one processor and over the computer network, at least one retailer selling the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage, where the at least one retailer within a third predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user. This is not in itself technological. Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, recites sending instructions to obtain the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage from the at least one retailer selling the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage. This at most requires the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, in accordance with the court decisions cited above with respect to claim 1. Claim 5, which depends from claim 4, recites sending instructions to deliver the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage to the at least one user. This at most requires the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, in accordance with the court decisions cited above with respect to claim 1. Claim 6, which depends from claim 2, recites sending instructions to charge, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, the at least one user for the at least one alcoholic beverage and the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage. This at most requires the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, in accordance with the court decisions cited above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 6 further links the claimed method to commercial interactions. The limitations of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, recites that the method further comprises retrieving, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, advertising data, where the advertising data comprises information associated [with at least one] free alcoholic beverage. Retrieving such advertising data in particular requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, in accordance with the court decisions cited above with respect to claim 1. Claim 8, which depends from claim 7, recites presenting, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, the advertising data, to the at least one user. Forsblom (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0186944) discloses (paragraph 9, emphasis added), “As these conventional advertising presentations are utilized more, their ubiquity has slowly led to a decrease in their impact and effectiveness. Most end users tend to regard conventional advertisements as boring at best, and thus are ignored. Further exacerbating this is that while the aforementioned conventional advertising presentation techniques were originally developed for viewing on browser platforms with ample screen real estate such as desktop and laptop computers, the user base of mobile devices such as smartphones has been expanding.” Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Forsblom describe the “aforementioned conventional advertising presentation techniques”. Hence, presenting the advertising data as recited need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Claim 9, which depends from claim 8, recites comprises retrieving, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, advertising data, where the advertising data comprises information associated with the at least one free alcoholic beverage. Claim 9 reiterates the limitations of claim 7, and therefore, as set forth above with regard to claim 1, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 10, which depends from claim 9, recites sending instructions to obtain the at least one free alcoholic beverage from a manufacturer. Sending instructions need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 11, which depends from claim 10, recites sending instructions to deliver the at least one free alcoholic beverage to the at least one user. Sending instructions need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, as set forth above with respect to claim 1. The limitations of claims 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 12, which depends from claim 1, recites that the electronic request comprises a request to purchase N alcoholic beverages, where N≥1 and where N is a quantity of alcoholic beverages requested by the at least one user. Having the request be such a purchase request is not in itself technological. Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, recites determining whether the alcoholic beverage retailer has at least N alcoholic beverages; this need not be technological. Claim 14, which depends from claim 13, recites, upon determining that the alcoholic beverage retailer has at least N alcoholic beverages, sending instructions to obtain N alcoholic beverages from the alcoholic beverage retailer; and sending instructions to deliver the N alcoholic beverages to the at least one user. Sending instructions need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 15, which depends from claim 13, recites that, upon determining that the alcoholic beverage retailer does not have at least N alcoholic beverages, the method further comprises: locating, by the at least one processor and over a computer network, a distributor or pool buyer, where the distributor or pool buyer is located at with the first predetermined distance from the location of the alcoholic beverage retailer; [and] determining whether the distributor or pool buyer has at least N-M alcoholic beverages, where M<N, and where M is a number of alcoholic beverages possessed by the alcoholic beverage retailer. Neither the locating nor the determining need be in itself technological. Claim 16, which depends from claim 15, recites that, upon determining that the distributor or pool buyer has at least N-M alcoholic beverages, the method further comprises: sending instructions to obtain the M alcoholic beverages from the alcoholic beverage retailer; sending instructions to obtain the N-M alcoholic beverages from the distributor or pool buyer; and sending instructions to deliver the N alcoholic beverages to the at least one user. Sending instructions need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 17, which depends from claim 15, recites that, upon determining that the distributor or pool buyer does not have at least N-M alcoholic beverages, the method further comprises locating, by the at least one processor and over a computer network, a manufacturer. The locating need not be in itself technological. Claim 18, which depends from claim 17, recites that the manufacturer is located within a third predetermined distance from the location of the distributor or pool buyer, and that the method further comprises: sending instructions to obtain the N-M-K alcoholic beverages from the manufacturer, where K is a number of alcoholic beverages possessed by the distributor or pool buyer, where K<M <N; sending instructions to obtain the K alcoholic beverages from the distributor or pool buyer; sending instructions to obtain the M alcoholic beverages from the alcoholic beverage retailer; and sending instructions to deliver the N alcoholic beverages to the at least one user. Sending instructions need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, as set forth above with respect to claim 1; the location of the manufacturer is not itself technological. The limitations of claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B, for claims 1-18: NO)
Independent claim 19 is a system comprising: at least one processor, where the at least one processor is configured to receive an electronic request from at least one user to purchase at least one alcoholic beverage; a user locator, where the at least one user locator is configured to determine a location of the at least one user; a distributor or pool buyer locator, where the distributor or pool buyer locator is configured to locate a distributor or pool buyer located with first predetermined distance from the location of an alcoholic beverage retailer; an alcoholic beverage retailer locator, where the alcoholic beverage retailer locator is configured to locate the alcoholic beverage retailer, where the alcoholic beverage retailer is located within a second predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: a first delivery vehicle to transfer the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer; and, upon the transfer of he at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer, instruct a second delivery vehicle to obtain the at least one alcoholic beverage from the alcoholic beverage retailer and deliver the at least one alcoholic beverage to the at least one user. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). This implies that a network itself must also be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein.” Hence, the at least one processor need be only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. Based on the court decisions noted above, performing the operations and receiving an electronic request need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology; the processor being “configured to instruct”, which implies transmitting instructions to the first and second delivery vehicles, need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology.
Narayana et al. (U.S. Patent 9,125,046) discloses (column 5, line 66, through column 6, line 4, emphasis added), “In addition to activity interface, the activity map can represent the geographic location at which a user device is located. Geographic location can be determined based on the cell towers which the user device connects to, self-reported by a GPS locator present on the user device, or through any other well known means.” Hence, a user locator, and the other locators of claim 20, need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 19, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed system to significantly more than an abstract idea. (Step 2B, for claim 19: NO)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,761 in view of Rellas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0186963). Claim 1 of the instant application, as may be seen in Table 1 below, is a method claim essentially parallel to non-transitory computer readable medium claim 1 of the ‘761 patent. Limitations present in one claim but not a parallel claim are shown bolded in Table 1. Additionally, claim 1 of the instant application expressly recites the use of first and second delivery vehicles. Rellas discloses delivery vehicles delivering products (paragraph 31, emphasis added), “Delivery vehicles 106 of the retail stores then can deliver consumer products from the retail store 100 in a given territory to the houses 102 in the given territory. The houses are only exemplary; deliveries may be made to apartments, other stores, or public locations, or combinations of them.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to use delivery vehicles to cause beverages to be delivered to an alcoholic beverage retailer and/or to at least one user.
As may be further be seen in Table 1, claim 2 of the instant application is closely parallel to claim 2 of the ‘761 patent. Then claim 3 of the instant application is closely parallel to claim 3 of the ‘761 patent, with the additional limitation, “where the at least one retailer is located within a third predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user.” Because the limitation “where the alcoholic beverage retailer is located within a second predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user” is already part of claim 1 of the instant application, this is deemed trivially obvious. Next, claim 4 of the instant application is closely parallel to claim 4 of the ‘761 patent, and claim 5 of the instant application is closely parallel to claim 5 of the ‘761 patent. Claim 6 of the instant application is closely parallel to claim 8 of the ‘761 patent. Claim 19 of the instant application is a system claim parallel to claim 1 of the instant application and therefore to claim 1 of the ‘761 patent, a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Table 1
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,026,761
1. A method comprising:
receiving by at least one processor, an electronic request from at least one user to purchase at least one alcoholic beverage;
determining, by the at least one processor and over a computer network, a location of the at least one user;
locating, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, a distributor or pool buyer carrying the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user, where the distributor or pool buyer is located within a first predetermined distance from the location of an alcoholic beverage retailer selling the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user;
locating, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, the alcoholic beverage retailer, where the alcoholic beverage retailer is located within a second predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user;
using the at least one processor and over the computer network, causing a first delivery vehicle to transfer the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer;
upon the transfer of the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer, using the at least one processor and over the computer network, causing a second delivery vehicle to obtain the at least one alcoholic beverage from the alcoholic beverage retailer; and
using the at least one processor and over the computer network, causing the second delivery vehicle to deliver the at least one alcoholic beverage to the at least one user.
2. The method of claim 1, where the electronic request further comprises a request to purchase at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising locating by the at least one processor and over the computer network, at least one retailer selling the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage, where the at least one retailer is located within a third predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising sending instructions to obtain the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage from the at least one retailer selling the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising sending instructions to deliver the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage to the at least one user.
6. The method of claim 2, further comprising sending instructions to charge, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, the at least one user for the at least one alcoholic beverage and the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage.
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing code, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to:
receive an electronic request from at least one user to purchase at least one alcoholic beverage;
determine a location of the at least one user;
locate a distributor or pool buyer carrying the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user, where the distributor or pool buyer is located within a first predetermined distance an alcoholic beverage retailer selling the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user;
locate the alcoholic beverage retailer, where the alcoholic beverage retailer is located within a second predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user;
transfer the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer;
obtain the at least one alcoholic beverage from the alcoholic beverage retailer; and
deliver the at least one alcoholic beverage to the at least one user.
2. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, where the electronic request further comprises a request to purchase at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage.
3. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, further comprising instructions executable by the processor to locate at least one retailer selling the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage.
4. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3, further comprising instructions executable by the processor to obtain the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage from the at least one retailer selling the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage.
5. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 4, further comprising instructions executable by the processor to the at least one user.
8. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 2, further comprising instructions executable by the processor to charge the at least one user for the at least one alcoholic beverage and the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hessurg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/02570574) in view of Rellas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0186963), Brock (U.S. Patent 9,934,523), and Perry (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0011453). As per claim 1, Hessurg discloses a processor (paragraph 146, emphasis added), “As shown in FIG. 12, the central processing unit (‘CPU’) 1202 is coupled to the system bus 1204. The CPU 1202 may be a general purpose CPU or microprocessor, graphics processing unit (‘GPU’), and/or microcontroller. The present embodiments are not restricted by the architecture of the CPU 1202 so long as the CPU 1202, whether directly or indirectly, supports the modules and operations as described herein. The CPU 1202 may execute the various logical instructions according to the present embodiments.” See also Figure 12. Hessurg discloses receiving an electronic request from at least one user to purchase at least one alcoholic beverage (paragraph 207, emphasis added), “To illustrate, a customer may visit the hybrid e-commerce platform (e.g., a web page) provided by the hybrid e-commerce server to select alcoholic beverages (e.g., beers, wines, liquors, etc.) for purchase. The customer may browse a large selection of alcoholic beverages via the hybrid e-commerce platform and may make selections of particular alcoholic beverages for purchase. In an embodiment, during checkout, the hybrid e-commerce server may access inventory information associated with partnering alcoholic beverage retailers, distributors, and manufacturers to identify a location that has all of the selected alcoholic beverages in-stock, or for any alcoholic beverages that are not in stock, may schedule shipping of the out-of-stock alcoholic beverage to a particular retailer near the customer’s location.” From what is done in response, the customer’s selections constitute an actual request received by the hybrid e-commerce platform/server. Hessurg does not expressly disclose determining a location of the at least one user, but from what is disclosed in paragraph 207, a location of the user/customer would inherently have to be determined or acquired somehow.
Hessurg does not disclose locating a distributor or pool buyer carrying the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user, where the distributor or pool buyer is located within a first predetermined distance from the location of an alcoholic beverage retailer selling the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user. However, Hessurg does disclose the involvement of one or more distributors and a retailer, and transferring at least one alcoholic beverage from a distributor to a retailer (paragraph 185, emphasis added), “After receiving the payment for the membership, the hybrid e-commerce platform may generate and send reports to one or more distributors and a retailer, respectively. The reports may indicate wine selections (and potentially other products, such as cheeses) to be provided to the customer under the membership. In an embodiment, the wine selections (and other products) may be determined by a sommelier associated with the hybrid e-commerce platform. The distributor may then ship the wine selections to the retailer (e.g., a retailer identified in the report sent to the distributor). In an embodiment, the retailer may notify the hybrid e-commerce platform that the order is ready to be delivered to the customer and the customer may then be notified that the order is ready for pickup.” Hessurg discloses causing some kind of vehicle to deliver products (paragraph 77, emphasis added), “Any shipment method may be used, depicted in FIG. 1 as packages 151 and 152, including a fulfillment center, ground freight, air freight, government postal services, private parcel services (e.g., FedEx®, UPS®, etc.) or future delivery methods (e.g., drone delivery).” Hence, causing a first delivery vehicle to transfer the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer would have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority.
Rellas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0186963) teaches delivery of alcoholic beverages from retailers to customers (paragraph 113, emphasis added), “In these examples, customers buy alcoholic beverages (and maybe associated products like mixers, bottle-openers and snacks) from local licensed liquor stores, and the products are delivered to the customers.” Hessurg discloses (paragraph 200, emphasis added), “The method may further comprise providing, by a server, a list of an in-person provider in geographical proximity to the online viewer’s location”, and Brock expressly teaches determining merchants that are within a predetermined distance of the location of a user device (column 7, lines 21-28, emphasis added), “The server can for example dynamically determine a list of merchants that are located within a predetermined distance of the location of the user device. The server can compute distances between the location of the user device and each merchant in the merchant directory and select merchants that are within a threshold distance, e.g. merchants that are within 1 mile of the user device.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority, upon transfer of the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer, to cause a second delivery vehicle to obtain the at least one alcoholic beverage from the alcoholic beverage retailer, and to cause the second delivery vehicle to deliver the at least one alcoholic beverage to the at least one user, for at least the obvious advantages of making the product or products which the user/customer has requested available to the user/customer, and being able to receive payment for the product or products.
Brock teaches locating a merchant (column 4, lines 38-42, emphasis added), “The merchant can sign up for a merchant account using the merchant device 104 or another device. The merchant enters a name, account password, and contact information, e.g., email address, and physical location information, e.g., an address, into the payment service system 108.” This involves a computer network (see Figure 1, and see column 3, lines 19-57). Also, Brock teaches determining merchants that are within a predetermined distance of the location of a user device (column 7, lines 21-28, quoted above). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to locate, by the at least one processor and over the computer network, the alcoholic beverage retailer, where the alcoholic beverage retailer is located within a second predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user, for at least the obvious advantage of making delivery of the at least one alcoholic beverage without the expenditure of excessive time or fuel.
Perry teaches delivery radiuses of distributors (paragraph 15, emphasis added), “The subject invention discloses a system for providing substantial real-time bids to fill vacancies in retailer alcoholic beverage inventories, comprising: a computing device comprising executable software; a data storage device; a first database of a plurality of alcoholic beverage retailer identification information on the data storage device; a second database of alcoholic beverage inventory vacancies for each retailer on the data storage device, wherein the second database is updated by each retailer; a third database of a plurality of alcoholic beverage distributor identification information on the data storage device; a fourth database of alcoholic beverage available inventory from each of the plurality of distributors on the data storage device, wherein the fourth database is updated by each distributor; a fifth database of distributors generated in substantial real time by the system by i) matching the first database of retailers with the third database for distributors that have a delivery radius which includes the location of the retailers, and ii) matching the second database inventory vacancies from the retailer with the fourth database of available inventories; and wherein the distributors access the fifth database to select and make bids on the inventory vacancy of retailers matched in the fifth database.” Perry does not define “delivery radius”, but from Perry’s usage, there is no indication that it is a predefined radius. Brock teaches locating a merchant (column 4, lines 38-42, emphasis added), “The merchant can sign up for a merchant account using the merchant device 104 or another device. The merchant enters a name, account password, and contact information, e.g., email address, and physical location information, e.g., an address, into the payment service system 108.” This involves a computer network (see Figure 1, and see column 3, lines 19-57). Also, Brock teaches determining merchants that are within a predetermined distance of the location of a user device (column 7, lines 21-28, quoted above). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to locate a distributor or pool buyer carrying the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user, where the distributor or pool buyer is located within a first predetermined distance from the location of an alcoholic beverage retailer selling the at least one alcoholic beverage requested by the at least one user, for at least the obvious advantage of making delivery of the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the without the expenditure of excessive time or fuel.
As per claim 2, Hessurg discloses various products which are not alcoholic beverages, e.g., jewelry (paragraph 82, emphasis added), “In a jewelry purchase scenario, the customer may select one or more jewelry items for appraisal by a gemologist (e.g., a gemologist of chosen by the customer or suggested by the hybrid e-commerce platform). Thus, the customer is able to obtain a qualified opinion (e.g., an appraisal of the jewelry) for products purchased via the hybrid e-commerce platform prior to providing payment. . . . Furthermore, the hybrid e-commerce platform may allow jewelry retailers to carry a larger selection of jewelry pieces than they normally would be able to maintain on hand. For example, a jewelry retailer may carry a first number of jewelry items as on-hand items at a location, such as a brick-and-mortar retail store location, and a second number of jewelry items as virtual items that may be viewed and purchased via the hybrid e-commerce platform.” This is disclosure by the primary reference.
Yet further, Rellas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0186963) teaches buying products which are not alcoholic beverages, and having these products delivered to customers together with alcoholic beverages (paragraph 113, emphasis added), “In these examples, customers buy alcoholic beverages (and maybe associated products like mixers, bottle-openers and snacks) from local licensed liquor stores, and the products are delivered to the customers.”
As per claim 3, Hessurg discloses (paragraph 200, emphasis added), “The method may further comprise providing, by a server, a list of an in-person provider in geographical proximity to the online viewer’s location”, and Brock expressly teaches determining merchants that are within a predetermined distance of the location of a user device (column 7, lines 21-28, emphasis added), “The server can for example dynamically determine a list of merchants that are located within a predetermined distance of the location of the user device. The server can compute distances between the location of the user device and each merchant in the merchant directory and select merchants that are within a threshold distance, e.g. merchants that are within 1 mile of the user device.” Brock also teaches locating a merchant (column 4, lines 38-42, emphasis added), “The merchant can sign up for a merchant account using the merchant device 104 or another device. The merchant enters a name, account password, and contact information, e.g., email address, and physical location information, e.g., an address, into the payment service system 108.” This involves a computer network (see Figure 1, and see column 3, lines 19-57). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to locate at least one retailer selling the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage, where the at least one retailer is located within a third predetermined distance from the location of the at least one user, for at least the obvious advantage of making delivery of the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage without the expenditure of excessive time or fuel.
As per claim 4, Rellas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0186963) teaches buying products which are not alcoholic beverages, and having these products delivered to customers together with alcoholic beverages (paragraph 113, emphasis added), “In these examples, customers buy alcoholic beverages (and maybe associated products like mixers, bottle-openers and snacks) from local licensed liquor stores, and the products are delivered to the customers.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to send instructions to obtain the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage from the at least one retailer selling the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage, for at least the obvious advantage of being able to deliver the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage, and in consequence be paid for it.
As per claim 5, Rellas discloses delivery vehicles delivering products (paragraph 31, emphasis added), “Delivery vehicles 106 of the retail stores then can deliver consumer products from the retail store 100 in a given territory to the houses 102 in the given territory. The houses are only exemplary; deliveries may be made to apartments, other stores, or public locations, or combinations of them.” Rellas further discloses providing instructions for delivery (paragraph 213, emphasis added), “In Step 2504, the driver is presented the order information. This can include the products that the user ordered, the user’s full name, and the delivery address, among other things. In some examples, the driver is given turn-by-turn directions to the delivery address.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to send instructions to deliver the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage to the at least one user, for the obvious advantages of enabling the delivery to be made, and receiving payment for the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage.
As per claim 6, Hessurg discloses charging at least one user for at least one alcoholic beverage (paragraph 208, emphasis added), “In an embodiment, payment information may be provided in advance, and the particular retailer will access the hybrid e-commerce platform (e.g., an In-Person Representative Professional Web Application) to provide an input indicating that the customer has picked-up the particular alcoholic beverages, which may cause the hybrid e-commerce platform to charge an account of the customer using the previously provided payment information.” Hence it would have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to send instructions to charge the at least one user for the at least one alcoholic beverage and the at least one item that is not an alcoholic beverage, for at least the obvious advantage of receiving payment for merchandise.
As per claim 7, Hessurg discloses advertising (paragraph 124, emphasis added), “The hybrid e-commerce platform may include advertisements and/or marketing from vendors and/or other third parties. . . . The advertising and marketing campaigns may be provided, at least in part, via e-mail, text messages, social media, print media (e.g., direct mailers), or any other form of advertising/marketing.” See also, e.g., paragraph 197. Hessurg does not disclose retrieving advertising data, but retrieving data is taught, for example, by Brock (column 5, lines 9-15, emphasis added), “The user application can access the on-device directory in order to obtain information about merchants, for example, in response to a search query issued by a user of the user application. The on-device directory can be implemented as a database, as a flat file, as an inverted index, e.g., having multiple posting lists, or any of a variety of other techniques for performing information retrieval.” Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to retrieve advertising data, for at least the obvious advantage of having such data to be applied in creating ads, or sending existing ads to present or potential customers.
Rellas teaches free gifts, including beverages retrieving (paragraph 291, emphasis added), “For instance, a user can be rewarded for ‘clicking through’ advertisements (e.g., adding an item to their cart with an add-to-cart advertisement). The reward can be, for example, eliminating the user’s delivery fee, flagging an order for priority delivery, or receiving a free gift (e.g., a free bottle of soda). These types of advertisement do not present a high increase in net cost (e.g., the brand owner may not have to pay a lot to cover the user’s delivery fee), but do account for significant increases in click-through rates and subsequent ROI.” Rellas further teaches various rewards (paragraph 311, emphasis added), “For instance, in a special offer like that shown in FIG. 16B, the brand owner can select what the advertisement will offer in return for purchase of the promoted product (or any other action desired by the brand owner). These rewards can be, but are not limited to:”. This is followed by one reward in paragraph 371 (emphasis added): “Free with purchase (X item is free with purchase of item)”. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the advertising data to comprise information associated with at least one free alcoholic beverage, for at least the obvious advantage, as per Rellas, of encouraging purchases or click-through rates without a high increase in net cost.
As per claim 8, Hessurg discloses forms of advertising (paragraph 124, emphasis added), “The hybrid e-commerce platform may include advertisements and/or marketing from vendors and/or other third parties. . . . The advertising and marketing campaigns may be provided, at least in part, via e-mail, text messages, social media, print media (e.g., direct mailers), or any other form of advertising/marketing.” These would not make sense if not presented to a user or users. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to present the advertising data to at least one user, for such obvious advantages as encouraging the purchasing of advertised goods and/or services, with consequent profit.
As per claim 9, this repeats claim 7, and is therefore obvious on the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 7.
As per claim 10, Hessurg discloses alcoholic beverage manufacturers (paragraph 206, emphasis added), “For example, alcoholic beverage manufacturers and distributors may partner with a hybrid e-commerce provider (HECP) to provide for the sale of alcoholic beverages using the hybrid e-commerce platform.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to obtain the at least one free alcoholic beverage from a manufacturer, for at least the obvious advantage of meeting obligations and keeping good will by providing a promised reward, and for the obvious advantage of obtaining the at least one free alcoholic beverage from a manufacturer (e.g., brewer, vintner, or distiller) able to provide such an alcoholic beverage (either at the manufacturer’s expense, or paid for by someone else in the supply chain who presented advertising).
As per claim 11, what is set forth above with regard to claim 10 and the preceding claims is likewise applicable; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to deliver the at least one free alcoholic beverage from a manufacturer, for at least the obvious advantage of meeting obligations and keeping good will by providing a promised reward, and for the obvious advantage of obtaining the at least one free alcoholic beverage from a manufacturer (e.g., brewer, vintner, or distiller) able to provide such an alcoholic beverage (either at the manufacturer’s expense, or paid for by someone else in the supply chain who presented advertising).
As per claim 12, Hessurg discloses receiving an electronic request from at least one user to select and purchase one or more of multiple alcoholic beverages, which means to purchase N alcoholic beverages where N is greater than or equal to 1, and where N is a quantity of alcoholic beverages requested by the user (paragraph 207, emphasis added), “To illustrate, a customer may visit the hybrid e-commerce platform (e.g., a web page) provided by the hybrid e-commerce server to select alcoholic beverages (e.g., beers, wines, liquors, etc.) for purchase. The customer may browse a large selection of alcoholic beverages via the hybrid e-commerce platform and may make selections of particular alcoholic beverages for purchase. In an embodiment, during checkout, the hybrid e-commerce server may access inventory information associated with partnering alcoholic beverage retailers, distributors, and manufacturers to identify a location that has all of the selected alcoholic beverages in-stock, or for any alcoholic beverages that are not in stock, may schedule shipping of the out-of-stock alcoholic beverage to a particular retailer near the customer’s location.”
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hessurg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/02570574), Rellas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0186963), Brock (U.S. Patent 9,934,523), and Perry (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0011453) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Branton (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0143039). As per claim 13, Branton teaches finding whether an item is available in a retailer, by checking inventory (paragraph 37, emphasis added), “At 304, it is determined whether the missing item is out of stock, e.g., by checking the inventory database of items that are sold in the retail store. For example, the item may be in stock, but simply unavailable on shelf. If it is determined at 304 that the item is not out of stock but simply unavailable on the shelf, the not-on-shelf event is recorded at 306 and the customer is notified in real-time at 308 that the item is simply unavailable on the shelf and will be made available for sale shortly. . . For example, the dispatched clerk can fetch the item from a local warehouse storage for the customer.” Branton further teaches (paragraph 47, emphasis added), “In some embodiments, the OOSM module 408 may be also configured to determine whether the item may be available elsewhere (e.g., a nearby branch or a warehouse of the retailer), e.g., by checking the inventories of the retailer that are maintained in the database 108.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to determine whether the alcoholic beverage retailer has at least N alcoholic beverages, for such obvious advantages as determining whether a customer can be sold what he wishes to buy at once, or whether other arrangements should be made.
As per claim 14, given Branton’s teaching of locating desired items where they may be found (set forth above, with respect to claim 13), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to send instructions to obtain N alcoholic beverages from the alcoholic beverage retailer, and send instructions to deliver the N alcoholic beverages to the at least one user, for the obvious advantage, as per Branton, of satisfying customer and presumably making a profit, by selling the customer desired products which are readily available.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hessurg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/02570574), Rellas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0186963), Brock (U.S. Patent 9,934,523), and Perry (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0011453) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagai et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0020052). Claim 19 is a system claim essentially parallel to method claim 1, and therefor obvious largely on the same grounds set forth above with regard to claim 1. However, claim 19 further recites that the at least one processor is configured to “instruct a first delivery vehicle to transfer the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer”, and “instruct a second delivery vehicle to obtain the at least one alcoholic beverage from the alcoholic beverage retailer and deliver the at least one alcoholic beverage to the at least one user.” These clauses are interpreted as referring to actual instructions sent to delivery vehicles, whereas the language in claim 1, such as ‘causing a first delivery vehicle to transfer the at least one alcoholic beverage from the distributor or pool buyer to the alcoholic beverage retailer” could read on, for example, sending a message to human truck driver, or to a human manager of a distributor or pool buyer who has at least one human truck driver among his employees or contractors.
Hessurg discloses causing some kind of vehicle, which may be a drone, to deliver products (paragraph 77, emphasis added), “Any shipment method may be used, depicted in FIG. 1 as packages 151 and 152, including a fulfillment center, ground freight, air freight, government postal services, private parcel services (e.g., FedEx®, UPS®, etc.) or future delivery methods (e.g., drone delivery).” Nagai teaches transmitting instructions to a drone to carry out a delivery (paragraph 118, emphasis added), “At step S25, the service center 22 transmits the delivery command (flight command) and the priority/subordination level R to the target drone 26tar that is to deliver the product G. The delivery command includes a flight route RTf, which is the permitted provisional route RTp. The flight route RTf includes a route (outgoing route) from a departure point Pst that is the current position Pdcur (e.g., the warehouse 70) of the target drone 26tar to the delivery destination Pdtar and a route (return route) from the delivery destination Pdtar to the return destination Prtar.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to instruct first and second delivery vehicles as recited, for the obvious advantage of causing drones or other vehicles to follow correct flight routes or other routes that will take them to their proper destinations.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101, objected to as depending from claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, and objected to for an informality in claim 15, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Hessurg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/02570574) discloses elements of claims 11, 12, and 13, as set forth above, with other elements of claims 1 and 12 taught by Rellas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0186963), Brock (U.S. Patent 9,934,523), and Perry (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0011453). Branton (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0143039) is further applied to claim 13, from which claim 15 depends, as further set forth above. However, Hessurg, Branton, and the other prior art references of record do not, in combination, disclose or teach the specifics of locating, by the at least one processor and over a computer network, a distributor or pool buyer, where the distributor or pool buyer is located within the first predetermined distance from the location of the alcoholic beverage retailer, and determining whether the distributor or pool buyer has at least N – M alcoholic beverages, where M < N, and where M is a number of alcoholic beverages possessed by the alcoholic beverage retailer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Perry (U.S. Patent 10,607,282) discloses an open tap alcohol inventory bidding application. Bloom et al. (U.S. Patent 10,915,860) disclose a food and beverage item identification and tracking device, and system for improving supply chain logistical operations and inventory management. Nagai et al. (U.S. Patent 11,869,369) disclose a moving body and method for controlling the same, and method for determining priority.
Bloom et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0097894) disclose a food and beverage item identification and tracking device, and system for improving supply chain logistical operations and inventory management. Fuller et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0201921) disclose a system and method for facilitating communication within a tiered environment (this can involve purchasing alcohol).
Tims, “eVineyard Rises to No. 1 After Buying Rival Wine.com” [Abstract only] discloses that Wine.com orders frequently had to be routed through winery, wholesaler, or broker, and then a retailer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-672, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 April 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights