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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 17 February 2026.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 19 and 20 were amended.
Claims 5 and 13 were canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 7; 10-12 and 15-16; and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cuppari et al. (US 2019/0259077 A1).
Claim 1 –
As per claim 1, Cuppari discloses a system comprising:
a data tunneling connection on a point-of-sale device for receiving data from a communications network; (see Fig. 4; and “POS 532” and “network 524” of Fig. 5)
a data output connection for transmitting data to a remote device [beverage dispenser server 412/beverage order data 418]; (see paragraph [0038]; Fig. 4)
a processor [fulfillment server 410]; (see paragraph [0038]; Fig. 4) and
memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor (see paragraph [0085]), cause the system to:
receive, via the data tunneling connection, a data packet comprising point-of-sale transaction data and beverage dispenser instruction data, wherein:
(i) the point-of-sale transaction data is formatted in a first communications protocol, the first communications protocol is hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) or hypertext transfer protocol secure (HTTPS) that is accessible by the point-of-sale device (see “POS 532 may be configured to interact directly or indirectly with the electronic device 504 to enable the user to purchase goods or services via the electronic device 504 with the POS 532…A server 534 may be configured to processes orders by or for the retailer, and may be in communication with the POS 532 to support the purchases being made at the retailer by customers.” in paragraph [0046]; and “The user interface may be a webpage” in paragraph [0055]),
(ii) and the beverage dispenser instruction data is formatted in a second communications protocol that is different from the first communications protocol (“the electronic device 504 may execute a first app 536 and a second app…the first app 536 and the second app 538 may be in communication with one another using deep linking or integration…thereby allowing the user to have functions of two apps” in paragraph [0047]),
(iii) the point-of-sale transaction data includes a food order and the beverage dispenser instruction data includes a beverage order (see “The order 100 may…include (i) food service order 102 in the form of digital data, and (ii) beverage order 104 in the form of digital data.” in paragraph [0023]), and
(iv) the transaction data and the beverage dispenser instruction data are encapsulated in the data packet; (see “food services app 404” and “beverage dispenser app 406” in paragraph [0036]; “the first app 536 to be able to call using deep linking to call a function within the second app 538 or by a compiled integration of one or more functions of the second app 538, the user may utilize the first app 536 (e.g., restaurant app) and the second app 538 (i.e., dispenser app)” in paragraph [0048]; Fig. 4)
extract the point-of-sale transaction data from the data packet for use in fulfilling the food order; (see “service order fulfillment server 410 may parse the order data 416 to identify beverage order data 418 embedded” in paragraph [0038]) and
transmit, via the data output connection, the encapsulated data packet to a remote computing device, wherein the remote computing device is a beverage dispenser, and wherein, upon receipt of the beverage dispenser instruction data, the beverage dispenser fulfills the beverage order by dispensing a beverage. (The beverage dispenser 414 may be automatically configured in response to receiving the beverage order data 418 to dispense a beverage” in paragraph [0041])
Claim 2 –
Cuppari teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Cuppari further discloses a system:
wherein the beverage dispenser instruction data is received in an encapsulated data packet. (see “The order 100 may…include (i) food service order 102 in the form of digital data, and (ii) beverage order 104 in the form of digital data.” in paragraph [0023]; and “service order fulfillment server 410 may parse the order data 416 to identify beverage order data 418 embedded” in paragraph [0038])
Claim 7 –
Cuppari teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Cuppari further discloses a system:
wherein the data packet is received from a mobile user device. (see “users may use mobile devices to place food and/or beverage orders within the food services outlet environment is shown” in paragraph [0036]; Fig. 4)
Claims 10, 12, and 15-16 –
Claims 10, 12 and 15-16 are directed to a method for fulling a food and beverage order. Claims 10, 12 and 15-16 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claims 1, 2, 7, and 2, which are directed towards a system. Claims 10, 12 and 15-16 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1, 2, 7, and 2, respectively. It is noted that claim 16 is a duplicate of claim 12.
Claim 11 –
Cuppari teaches the method of claim 10 as described above.
Cuppari further discloses a method:
wherein the first computing device is a point-of-sale device. (see el. 502 in Fig. 5)
Claim 19 –
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 19 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a system. Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 20 –
Cuppari teaches the medium of claim 19 as described above.
Cuppari does not further disclose a medium:
wherein the second communications protocol is one of HTTP, HTTPS, point to point tunneling protocol (PPTP), Layer 2 Tunneling protocol (L2TP); Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol with Internet Protocol Security (L2TP/IPSEC); Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol, or an Open VPN protocol. (see “the electronic device 504 may execute…a second app or portion thereof 538” in paragraph [0047]; and “The user interface may be a webpage” in paragraph [0055]; Examiner notes a webpage can be in the form either an HTTP or an HTTPS protocol.)
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 and 8; and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuppari et al. (US 2019/0259077 A1) in view of Kelly et al. (US 2020/0184437 A1).
Claim 3 –
Cuppari teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Cuppari further discloses a system:
a display ID [order ID 544] for display via a user interface, a list of food or beverage items included in the food order or the beverage order, and notes relating to the food order or the beverage order (see paragraph [0049]), wherein the display ID is different than the unique order ID [beverage code 542] (see “order ID 544” and “beverage code 542” in paragraph [0050]).
However, Cuppari does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the food order and the beverage order comprise a unique order ID;
Kelly teaches wherein each of the food order and the beverage order comprise a unique order ID (see paragraph [0239]; Fig. 29B of Kelly; Examiner notes each individual item listed under the order number is associated with a number/unique order ID). This step of Kelly is applicable to the system of Cuppari as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to fulfilling food and beverage sales. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cuppari to include a unique order ID as taught by Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Cuppari in order for customers to efficiently place an order and receive their meal with the correct food items in a quick and accurate manner (see paragraph [0003] of Kelly).
Claim 8 –
Cuppari teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Cuppari does not further disclose the system below. However, Kelly teaches a system:
wherein the data packet is received from a third-party server associated with a food delivery service. (paragraph [0285]; Fig. 41 of Kelly)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Cuppari in order to quickly deliver food to a shared dispensing device that is accessible by both delivery drivers and customers (see paragraph [0007] of Kelly).
Claim 17 –
Claim 17 is directed to a method for fulling a food and beverage order. Claim 17 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a system. Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 3.
Claim 4; 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuppari et al. (US 2019/0259077 A1) in view of Quartarone et al. (US 2014/0040055 A1).
Claim 4 –
Cuppari teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Cuppari does not further disclose a system:
wherein the beverage order comprises a list of beverage items, and wherein each item of the list of beverage items includes a beverage ID, a beverage name, an ice level for the beverage, a size ID for a cup the beverage is to be dispensed into, a quantity of the beverage, and notes for display via a user interface.
While Cuppari does not disclose all the features listed above, Cuppari does disclose wherein the beverage order comprises a list of beverage items, and wherein each item of the list of beverage items includes a beverage ID, a beverage name, and a size ID for a cup the beverage is to be dispensed into (see paragraph [0049] of Cuppari). Quartarone cures the deficiencies of Cuppari by teaching wherein the beverage order comprises a list of beverage items, and wherein each item of the list of beverage items includes a beverage name, an ice level for the beverage, a size ID for a cup the beverage is to be dispensed into, a quantity of the beverage, and notes for display via a user interface (see paragraphs [0025], [0037]-[0038], [0041]; Fig. 6, 8, and 9 of Quartertone). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cuppari to include an ice level and notes for display as taught by Quartarone. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Cuppari in order to incorporate micro-ingredient technology that may allow a venue to offer dozens of different beverages without significant storage requirements in a fast and efficient manner (see paragraph [0005] of Kelly).
Claim 18 –
Claim 18 is directed to a method for fulling a food and beverage order. Claim 18 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a system. Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 4.
Claims 6 and 9; and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuppari et al. (US 2019/0259077 A1) in view of Kim (WO 2017/058794 A1).
Claim 6 –
Cuppari teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Cuppari does not further disclose a system:
wherein the second communications protocol is one of point to point tunneling protocol (PPTP), Layer 2 Tunneling protocol (L2TP); Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol with Internet Protocol Security (L2TP/IPSEC); Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol, or an Open VPN protocol.
Kim teaches wherein the second communications protocol is one of point to point tunneling protocol (PPTP), Layer 2 Tunneling protocol (L2TP); Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol with Internet Protocol Security (L2TP/IPSEC); Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol, or an Open VPN protocol (see “web sockets” in paragraph [063] of Kim). This step of Kim is applicable to the system of Cuppari as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to dispensing beverages from a dispensing device through a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cuppari to include a Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Cuppari in order facilitate personalized interaction with the dispensing device (see paragraph [033] of Kim).
Claim 9 –
Cuppari teaches the system of claim 1 as described above.
Cuppari does not further disclose a system:
wherein the data output connection comprises a WebSocket connection to facilitate bidirectional communication with the remote computing device.
Kim teaches wherein the data output connection comprises a WebSocket connection to facilitate bidirectional communication with the remote computing device (see “web sockets” in paragraph [063] of Kim). This step of Kim is applicable to the system of Cuppari as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to dispensing beverages from a dispensing device through a mobile device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cuppari to include a WebSocket connection as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Cuppari in order facilitate personalized interaction with the dispensing device (see paragraph [033] of Kim).
Claim 14 –
Claim 14 is directed to a method. Claim 14 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 6, which is directed towards a system. Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 February 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 112(a)/(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the amendment to claim 10 to include a processor removes the 112(f) invocation, thereby negating the rejections under 112(a)/(b). Therefore, the 112(a)/(b) rejections of claims 10-12 and 14-18 have been removed.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 February 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 102/103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claims 1, 10, and 19, the applicant argues that neither Cuppari nor Kelly, Quartarone, and Kim teach the newly amended features.
In response to the argument of claims 1, 10, and 19, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Cuppari does disclose the claimed elements.
With regard to the dependent claims, the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependency of the independent claims. As stated in the arguments above, the examiner is maintaining the rejection for claims 1, 10, and 19 and therefore the dependent claims remain rejected.
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 RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648