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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amended claims filed on 4/30/2026.
Claims 1-4 are amended.
Claims 5-9 are newly added.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments. Applicating argues “amended claim 1 recites "dispatching, by the controller, upon determining that a penetration rate of a first settlement means is equal to or less than a first predetermined value based on the penetration rate information, an automated vehicle accepting the first settlement means to the target area to open the mobile restaurant." This limitation does not merely analyze data or output a recommendation but requires an automated vehicle be dispatched to a specific geographic location.” (response at 5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the amendment amounts to mere instruction to apply the expectation by reciting the idea of a solution without details of how the problem is accomplished. “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".” (MPEP 2106305(f)(1)). Furthermore the dispatching of the store based on “penetration rate of a first settlement means is equal to or less than a first predetermined value based on the penetration rate information” and the use of the settlement means represent abstract elements.
For at least the reasons stated above applicant’s 101 are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s 103 arguments. Examiner asserts that the Beach-Drummond, Monaco, and Mitchell references teaches the newly amended claims and the newly added claims.
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 1-9 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 significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1 is directed to a method,
Abstract ideas are in bold below, and represents fundamental economic practice.
An information processing method performed by an information processing apparatus, the information processing apparatus comprising a controller, a communication interface, and a memory, and being capable of communicating with a network via the communication interface, the information processing method comprising:
identifying, by the controller, a target area to open a mobile restaurant, in the memory;
acquiring, by the controller, penetration rate information indicating respective penetration rates of settlement means in the target area to open a store from the memory; and
dispatching, by the controller, upon determining that a penetration rate of a first settlement means is equal to or less than a first predetermined value based on the penetration rate information, an automated vehicle accepting the first settlement means to the target area to open the mobile restaurant.
The additional elements of claim 1 such as “An information processing method performed by an information processing apparatus, the information processing apparatus comprising a controller, a communication interface, and a memory, and being capable of communicating with a network via the communication interface, the information processing method comprising:”, “…by the controller…”, “from the memory” “an automated vehicle accepting” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking an abstract idea to technical components. The claim elements when considered separately and in an ordered combination, do not add significantly more than implementing the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice.
Dependent claims 2-9 recited additional details which only further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 5 recites additional elements of “wherein the dispatching comprises controlling the automated vehicle to move to the target area to open the mobile restaurant.” does no more than use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and do no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, as it is no more than apply it does not improve the functioning of a computer, or improve other technology or technical field.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2018/0005313 A1) in view of Beach-Drummond (US 2022/0156695 A1)
Regarding Claim 1
An information processing method performed by an information processing apparatus, the information processing apparatus comprising a controller, a communication interface, and a memory, and being capable of communicating with a network via the communication interface, the information processing method comprising: (See at least Gupta [0065] FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing a technical architecture of the server 26. The technical architecture includes a processor 222 (which may be referred to as a central processor unit or CPU) that is in communication with memory devices including secondary storage 224 (such as disk drives), read only memory (ROM) 226, random access memory (RAM) 228. The processor 222 may be implemented as one or more CPU chips. The technical architecture may further comprise input/output (I/O) devices 230, and network connectivity devices 232).
identifying, by the controller, a target area to open a … in the memory; (See at least Gupta [0055] FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a computer system 20 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The computer system 20 is configured for determining a new location for a merchant, in accordance with the method described above, and comprises a transaction database 22, a location database 24 and a server 26. The database 22 comprises transaction data for a plurality of cardholders. The database 24 comprises location data for said cardholders. The server 26 comprises an analysis component configured for a) combining the location data with the transaction data; b) analysing the locations of cardholders performing transactions at a particular merchant or type of merchant to determine any localities within which multiple cardholders performing such transactions are located; and c) assessing such localities on the basis of one or more economic factors to determine whether to recommend said locality as a new location for the merchant or type of merchant.
acquiring, by the controller, penetration rate information indicating respective penetration rates of settlement means in the target area from the memory; and (See at least Gupta [0055] The database 22 comprises transaction data for a plurality of cardholders. The database 24 comprises location data for said cardholders. The server 26 comprises an analysis component configured for a) combining the location data with the transaction data;
Gupta does not specifically teach: dispatching, by the controller, upon determining that a penetration rate of a first settlement means is equal to or less than a first predetermined value based on the penetration rate information, an automated vehicle accepting the first settlement means to the target area to open the mobile restaurant.
However Beach-Drummond teaches at least at [0006] An object of the present invention is to increase efficiencies associated with delivery services by (i) providing an automated electronic management system for dispatching and routing delivery vehicles based on the location, quantity and proximity of customer delivery points within a defined delivery area, and (ii) deploying a network of self-contained mobile storefronts within a defined delivery area, that prepare and package orders from an inventory stored thereon, circumventing the need to return to the supplying brick and mortar business location to pick up each delivery order.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Method for determine a new locations for a merchant of Gupta in view of with the intelligent network for autonomous delivery vehicles as taught by Beach-Drummond in order to automatically send autonomous restaurant to desired locations.
Regarding Claim 5
Gupta does not specifically teach: wherein the dispatching comprises controlling the automated vehicle to move to the target area to open the mobile restaurant.
However, Beach-Drummond teaches at least at [0021] The onboard computer for each autonomous mobile storefront may be further configured to operate an automated navigation program to route the autonomous mobile storefront to a preferred destination based on at least one of a desired location, quantity, and proximity of customers within a defined delivery area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Method for determine a new locations for a merchant of Gupta in view of with the intelligent network for autonomous delivery vehicles as taught by Beach-Drummond in order to automatically send autonomous restaurant to desired locations.
Regarding Claim 6
Gupta does not specifically teach: wherein the settlement means comprises at least one of electronic money, two-dimensional code, credit card, debit card, or cryptographic asset.
However, Beach-Drummond teaches at least at [0063] A consumer's user account serves as a portal to manage a variety of tasks and functions within the restaurant's web application. Most importantly, a consumer is able to securely purchase pre-paid credits for food items using a merchant service provider 106 which manages financial transactions, clears payments and makes deposits in the restaurant's bank account 104.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Method for determine a new locations for a merchant of Gupta in view of with the intelligent network for autonomous delivery vehicles as taught by Beach-Drummond in order to automatically send autonomous restaurant to desired locations.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2018/0005313 A1) in view of Beach-Drummond (US 2022/0156695 A1) and further in view of Monaco (US 2019/0147708 A1)
Regarding Claim 2
Gupta does not specifically teach: The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising increasing, in them memory, a refund rate for a case in which the first settlement means is used in the automated vehicle upon determining that the penetration rate of the first settlement means is equal to or less than a second predetermined value that is lower than the first predetermined value.
However, Monaco teaches at least at [0105] For example, if at a merchant location, usage of payment instruments enrolled in a custom rewards program increases, the issuer computer system may increase a rebate amount of a fee paid by the merchant for the specific merchant location. A magnitude of an economic adjustment for a merchant location may be determined based on to a threshold number of custom rewards having been offered and/or redeemed at the merchant location within a predetermined time period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Method for determine a new locations for a merchant of Gupta in view of the point of sale system integrating merchant rewards as taught by Monaco in order to reward customers for using reward programs.
Regarding Claim 7
Gupta does not specifically teach: The information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising increasing, in them memory, a refund rate for a case in which the first settlement means is used in the automated vehicle upon determining that the penetration rate of the first settlement means is equal to or less than a second predetermined value that is lower than the first predetermined value.
However, Monaco teaches at least at [0105] For example, if at a merchant location, usage of payment instruments enrolled in a custom rewards program increases, the issuer computer system may increase a rebate amount of a fee paid by the merchant for the specific merchant location. A magnitude of an economic adjustment for a merchant location may be determined based on to a threshold number of custom rewards having been offered and/or redeemed at the merchant location within a predetermined time period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Method for determine a new locations for a merchant of Gupta in view of the point of sale system integrating merchant rewards as taught by Monaco in order to reward customers for using reward programs.
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US 2018/0005313 A1) in view of Beach-Drummond (US 2022/0156695 A1) and further in view of Monaco (US 2019/0147708 A1) and further in view of Mitchell (US 2020/0051117 A1)
Regarding Claim 3
Gupta does not specifically teach: detecting, in the memory, a plurality of settlement means that can be used by a use; and notifying, upon determining that the first settlement means, which is eligible for a refund, is not included among the plurality of settlement means that can be used, the user of the first settlement means, which is eligible for the refund, via an output interface of the automated vehicle.
However Mitchell teaches at least at [0210] FIG. 98 illustrates one embodiment of a co-brand, dual-brand, or private label payment method registration system. In one embodiment, the platform is operable to detect and/or determine a purchase using at least one registered payment method for a user account and, upon determining availability of a branded (co-brand, dual-brand, private label, etc.) payment method (e.g., a private label credit card for the merchant), the platform is operable to generate a notification and system for registration for the branded payment method. The platform is operable to offer with the notification and registration system at least one offer, incentive, or reward that is tied to or separate from rewards of the branded payment method. For example, in one embodiment, the platform notifies the user of a financing offer enabled by transferring the purchase to a private label credit card. Upon detection that the private label credit card is not associated with the targeted user account, the platform is operable to offer an application and/or registration mechanism for obtaining the private label credit card, wherein the platform and/or the registration method is operable to capture, receive, and/or transmit user personal information necessary for determining approval for the credit card and/or for registration. Once the private label credit card has been added to the user account and/or the user account has been approved, the financing offer is presented to the user account. The financing offer is alternatively any offer, incentive, or reward known in the art. In one embodiment, the registration method and/or any offers, incentives, or rewards captures information and registers a user account for a loyalty system in addition to or instead of a branded payment method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Method for determine a new locations for a merchant of Gupta in view of the method for managing rewards as taught by Mitchell in order to provide user with the ability to register for reward programs.
Regarding Claim 4
Gupta does not specifically teach: wherein the automated vehicle is dispatched to notify a user of a method of using or registering the first settlement means, which is eligible for a refund.
However, Mitchell teaches at least at [0210] The financing offer is alternatively any offer, incentive, or reward known in the art. In one embodiment, the registration method and/or any offers, incentives, or rewards captures information and registers a user account for a loyalty system in addition to or instead of a branded payment method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Method for determine a new locations for a merchant of Gupta in view of the method for managing rewards as taught by Mitchell in order to provide user with the ability to register for reward programs.
Regarding Claim 8
Gupta does not specifically teach: detecting, in the memory, a plurality of settlement means that can be used by a user; and notifying, upon determining that the first settlement means, which is eligible for a refund, is not included among the plurality of settlement means that can be used, the user of the first settlement means, which is eligible for the refund, via an output interface of the automated vehicle.
However Mitchell teaches at least at [0210] FIG. 98 illustrates one embodiment of a co-brand, dual-brand, or private label payment method registration system. In one embodiment, the platform is operable to detect and/or determine a purchase using at least one registered payment method for a user account and, upon determining availability of a branded (co-brand, dual-brand, private label, etc.) payment method (e.g., a private label credit card for the merchant), the platform is operable to generate a notification and system for registration for the branded payment method. The platform is operable to offer with the notification and registration system at least one offer, incentive, or reward that is tied to or separate from rewards of the branded payment method. For example, in one embodiment, the platform notifies the user of a financing offer enabled by transferring the purchase to a private label credit card. Upon detection that the private label credit card is not associated with the targeted user account, the platform is operable to offer an application and/or registration mechanism for obtaining the private label credit card, wherein the platform and/or the registration method is operable to capture, receive, and/or transmit user personal information necessary for determining approval for the credit card and/or for registration. Once the private label credit card has been added to the user account and/or the user account has been approved, the financing offer is presented to the user account. The financing offer is alternatively any offer, incentive, or reward known in the art. In one embodiment, the registration method and/or any offers, incentives, or rewards captures information and registers a user account for a loyalty system in addition to or instead of a branded payment method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Method for determine a new locations for a merchant of Gupta in view of the method for managing rewards as taught by Mitchell in order to provide user with the ability to register for reward programs.
Regarding Claim 9
Gupta does not specifically teach: wherein the automated vehicle is dispatched to notify the user of a method of using or registering the first settlement means, which is eligible for a refund.
However, Monaco teaches at least at [0172] GUI 105 may include one or more than one of the features described in connection with GUIs 101 and 103. GUI 105 may include proactive “shadow box” 119. Shadow box 119 may be configured to display one or more popup windows. Shadow box 119 may present one or more custom merchant reward offers associated with a payment instrument. Shadow box 119 may include general and/or detailed information regarding the offer (s). Shadow box 119 may include one or more features configured to facilitate accepting and/or registering for custom reward offer(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Method for determine a new locations for a merchant of Gupta in view of the point of sale system integrating merchant rewards as taught by Monaco in order to reward customers for using reward programs.
Prior Art of Record Not Currently Relied Upon
Maynard (US 2017/0228802 A1) Teaches: Online real time business information
Tomida (US 2021/0287208 A1) Teaches: Mobile terminal and wallet system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY MARK JAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-5155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/GREGORY M JAMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3692
/RYAN D DONLON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3692
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights